1983 (6) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Central Excise duty under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector; Appeal to Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras; Verification of goods and processing details; Compliance with Form V register requirements.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT MADRAS involved a request for a refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,01,810.94 under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad V Division had initially rejected the refund claim due to the lack of proof of return of damaged goods by six parties and deficiencies in the Form V Register. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, upheld the rejection, emphasizing the need for proper accounting to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the goods' receipt was duly intimated in the prescribed form, and the Superintendent of Central Excise had verified the consignment details, including gate pass information. The Tribunal interpreted the Superintendent's endorsement as sufficient verification, indicating that the necessary checks had been conducted. The Tribunal also addressed the argument that the Assistant Collector could seek satisfaction independently, but found the Superintendent's verification valid unless proven otherwise.

Another issue raised was the absence of certain processing details in the Form V register, as highlighted by the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal reasoned that if the prescribed form lacked specific columns for required data, the appellants could not be faulted for the omission. The Tribunal deemed the Assistant Collector's objection regarding missing processing details in Form V as unsustainable.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, conditional upon the Assistant Collector verifying the Form V register to ensure it contained the necessary information as per the Department's requirements. The Tribunal directed the refund of the duty involved once the Assistant Collector was satisfied with the Form V register's compliance with the prescribed standards, thereby resolving the dispute in favor of the appellants.