2006 (5) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing refund claim under Rule 173L.
2. Rejection of relaxation request due to rescission of Rule 173L.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case pertains to the time limitation for filing a refund claim under Rule 173L. The appellant had filed a refund claim on 1-4-2003 for rejected goods received in the factory on 29-7-2000. The appellant argued that the reprocessing of the goods was done within six months, and the refund claim was filed within six months from the date of clearance of the reprocessed goods in December 2002. However, the Commissioner rejected the request for relaxation of the time limit, stating that the claim was time-barred as it should have been filed within six months from the entry of the goods in the factory. The Tribunal found the application misconceived but remanded the matter for re-examination based on the duty paid in December 2002.

2. The second issue involves the rejection of the relaxation request by the Commissioner due to the rescission of Rule 173L. The Revenue argued that the appellant should have filed the refund claim within six months from the re-entry of the goods in the factory, making their claim time-barred. The Commissioner rejected the request for relaxation citing the non-existence of the provision under which the relaxation was sought. The Tribunal acknowledged the deletion of the relevant provision but remanded the matter for fresh adjudication based on the duty paid in December 2002.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case for re-examination by the adjudicating authority to determine the validity of the refund claim concerning the duty paid in December 2002. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to time limitations for filing refund claims and the impact of rescinded provisions on seeking relaxation in such matters.