1983 (12) TMI 311 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.
2. Entitlement to refund of duty paid on hessian cloth.
3. Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules for rebate claims.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed appeals before the Collector (Appeals) within the stipulated period, believing it was the correct authority based on previous judgments. The appellant, a sole proprietor, stated that the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal was due to unfamiliarity with Tribunal procedures. The appellant pleaded that the delay was due to sufficient cause and should be condoned. The Tribunal agreed to condone the delay in filing the appeals.

Entitlement to Refund:
The appellant, a small-scale manufacturer of jute bags, claimed duty paid on hessian cloth as rebate. The appellant had exported jute bags without possessing a Central Excise license or complying with formalities under the Central Excise Act and Rules. The appellant argued that being registered with the Jute Commissioner and filing refund claims in time entitled them to the refund. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the appellant did not comply with Chapter IX procedures and lacked the necessary license, making them ineligible for the refund. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that mere registration with the Jute Commissioner was insufficient for refund entitlement.

Compliance with Central Excise Act and Rules:
The Departmental Representative highlighted the appellant's failure to follow Chapter IX procedures and Rule 185 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Referring to relevant judgments, the Representative argued that the appellant did not meet the statutory requirements for refund eligibility. The appellant countered that as they were not registered with Central Excise Authorities, the obligation to furnish certain documents did not apply. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides, held that the appellant's non-compliance with procedural requirements rendered them ineligible for the refund. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.