1984 (6) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Refund of duty on rejected consignments
- Interpretation of Rule 173L regarding return of goods
- Late intimation of re-entry of goods

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a dispute over the refund of duty paid on rejected consignments of Hydrogenated hardened rice bran oil. The Collector of Central Excise rejected the Company's claim based on non-compliance with Rule 173L, including late filing of D-3 intimation and discrepancies in the quantity accounted for.

2. The Collector (Appeals) disagreed with the Assistant Collector's interpretation of Rule 173L, emphasizing that the provision applies even in cases of outright rejection by the consignee. He allowed the appeal for two consignments but rejected it for one due to non-compliance with specific requirements of the rule.

3. The Collector of Central Excise contended that Rule 173L does not allow refunds for quantities lost during reprocessing and argued against the applicability of the rule in cases of outright rejection without documented return to the factory for reprocessing.

4. The Senior Departmental Representative cited the 'Law Dictionary' to differentiate between 'return' and 'rejection' in the context of Rule 173L. The Company disputed the requirement for goods to go back to the original consignee after reprocessing, as per the rule.

5. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 173L, noting that the return of goods for reprocessing involves both the consignee and the consignor. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the provision applies to all three consignments in question, irrespective of the consignee's rejection.

6. Regarding the Collector's argument on no refund for quantities lost during reprocessing, the Tribunal found that as long as the proof of return and reprocessing is available, duty refund is applicable, even if some original goods are lost in the process.

7. The issue of late intimation of re-entry of goods under Rule 173L was raised. The Tribunal considered the requirement of filing within 24 hours, but allowed for exclusion of holidays when the office is closed, extending the benefit of a Trade Notice that excluded such days for computation.

8. The Tribunal applied the principle from the General Clauses Act to exclude holidays for computing the 24-hour period for intimation under Rule 173L. Referring to a Trade Notice, the Tribunal extended the benefit to all three consignments, ultimately allowing the Company's appeal and dismissing the Collector of Central Excise's appeal.