1983 (12) TMI 309 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay.
2. Claim for refund of Central Excise duty on Moped tubes.
3. Provisional assessment and entitlement to refund.
4. Proof of re-warehousing and its impact on refund claim.

Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of delay:
The appellant filed a Revision petition with the Ministry, which was later transferred to the Tribunal. The appeal was filed in the proper form after a mistaken belief of law. The appellant sought condonation of delay, stating ignorance of the Tribunal's rules. The Tribunal held that the delay was due to a bona fide mistake, and the filing of the appeal in the correct form rectified the error. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal excused the delay, considering the circumstances.

Claim for refund of Central Excise duty on Moped tubes:
The appellant, a tyre manufacturer, claimed a refund of duty paid on Moped tubes supplied to another company. The tubes were delivered to the customer without using the prescribed procedure, leading to a refund claim. The appellant argued that the duty was paid provisionally and within the time limit. The appellant contended that the duty was paid twice as a precaution and that the refund claim was valid under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Provisional assessment and entitlement to refund:
The respondent challenged the appellant's claim, arguing that the duty payment was not provisional and that the appellant failed to prove re-warehousing as required by Rule 156B. The respondent emphasized discrepancies in payment amounts and lack of re-warehousing certification. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, citing the necessity of satisfying conditions for refund, including proof of re-warehousing. The absence of re-warehousing and insufficient proof of payment led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Proof of re-warehousing and its impact on refund claim:
The Tribunal highlighted the requirement under Rule 156B for proof of re-warehousing to be eligible for a refund. The absence of re-warehousing certification by the consignee and lack of sufficient proof of payment led to the rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the importance of meeting the conditions for refund, including re-warehousing certification and satisfactory proof of payment. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the appellant's failure to fulfill these requirements.