1985 (1) TMI 329 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for refund of duty paid on teleprinter tapes/rolls
- Rejection of claim by Assistant Collector and subsequent review by Collector
- Question of whether printing paper purchased from the market was duty-paid
- Contention regarding time-bar contained in Rule II
- Determination of duty-paid nature of goods purchased from the open market
- Validity and acceptance of B-13 bond for provisional assessment
- Correlation between dates of market purchases and acceptance of bond
- Calculation of refund based on duty paid on T.P. rolls
- Application of limitation in Rule 11 to the case
- Direction for redetermination of relief by the Collector

Detailed Analysis:

The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of teleprinter tapes/rolls, filed a claim for refund of duty paid on such products. The claim was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector on the grounds that the claim period preceded the issuance of a relevant trade notice. The Collector, upon review, partially allowed the claim, refunding a calculated amount of duty. The appellants challenged this partial rejection before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the appellants argued that printing paper purchased from the market should be considered duty-paid unless proven otherwise by the department. They contended that the burden of proof rested on the department to establish non-duty paid status. They also emphasized that the claim was for duty paid on T.P. rolls, not on the base printing paper used.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative raised the issue of time-bar under Rule II, asserting that the claim was beyond the specified period. They argued that market purchases of paper could not be assumed duty-paid without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and held that goods purchased from the open market under proper bills were presumed duty-paid unless proven otherwise by the department. They referenced a Delhi High Court decision to support this principle. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the validity and acceptance of the B-13 bond for provisional assessment, emphasizing that the bond's execution date marked its operation date.

Regarding the correlation between market purchase dates and bond acceptance, the Tribunal clarified that the crucial factor was the clearance date of T.P. rolls, not paper purchase dates. They also highlighted that deductions for wastage in manufacture were irrelevant to the refund claim based on duty paid on T.P. rolls.

Furthermore, the Tribunal discussed the application of the limitation in Rule 11, citing a Supreme Court judgment that upheld the Customs authorities' adherence to time limitations in similar cases. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order and directed a fresh determination of the relief, maintaining the previously granted relief. The appeal was allowed with these directions, ensuring a fair redetermination of the refund claim by the Collector.