2009 (8) TMI 919 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim jurisdiction under Rule 12B of CER, 2002.

Summary:
The case involved a dispute regarding the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 21,96,532/- by the lower authority on the grounds of incorrect jurisdiction. The appellant company, primarily a textile trader, had availed registration as a manufacturer u/s Rule 12B of CER, 2002 to get textile goods produced through job workers. The goods were cleared from the job workers' premises after payment of Central Excise duty by the appellant, who also issued invoices as a manufacturer. The lower authority rejected the refund claim, stating it should have been filed with the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner in the jurisdiction of the factory where the goods were exported from.

The appellant contended that as per Rule 12B, they were treated as a manufacturer for textile goods, and the rejection of the refund claim based on jurisdiction was incorrect. The appellant had undertaken all responsibilities and procedures as required by the rules, including clearance for home consumption and exports from the job workers' premises. The appellant argued that for all dealings, they interacted with the jurisdictional range officer and Assistant Commissioner of Vadodara II division, and it was not appropriate to require a different jurisdiction for refund purposes.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant rules, held in favor of the appellant. It was noted that the appellant had complied with all procedures and responsibilities as a manufacturer under Rule 12B. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that the fiction created by the law must be given full effect, and there was no indication that the appellant had not followed the required procedures. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were deemed entitled to the refund from the Assistant Commissioner in their jurisdiction.

*(Pronounced in Court)*