2008 (5) TMI 637 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The dutiability of "treated paper" or/and "treated fabric" under TI 17(2), TI 19(iii) and TI 22B, the eligibility for the benefit of set off under Notification No 71/71-C.E., refund of pre-deposit amount, compliance with Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, and the denial of refund by the Commissioner of Central Excise.

Dutiability of "treated paper/fabric" at the intermediate stage:
The Appellants were held liable to pay duty on the intermediary product by the CEGAT, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the Collector of Central Excise to permit the appellants to comply with Rule 56A and claim set off of the duty payable on the intermediary product used in the manufacture of the end product. The Appellants sought a refund of the pre-deposit amount, claiming compliance with Rule 56A and utilization of intermediate products in the end product. However, the Commissioner denied the refund, stating no basis or occasion for passing any order.

Compliance with Rule 56A and claim for refund:
The Appellants argued that they had paid full duty on the laminates, and the duty liability on treated paper/fabric at the intermediate stage was not in dispute. They contended that they had complied with Rule 56A to the extent possible and were eligible for the refund of the pre-deposit amount. The Revenue contested, highlighting the stringent requirements under Rule 56A, including proving the utilization of intermediate products in the final products and payment of full duty on the final products.

Denial of refund by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner held that the Appellants failed to provide evidence to satisfy the requirements of Rule 56A, such as proving the correlation of inputs used in the final products, utilization of treated paper/fabric in the final products, and payment of full duty on the final products. As the Appellants did not furnish satisfactory evidence, the Commissioner's decision to deny the refund was deemed proper and legal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that no claim of set off complying with Rule 56A was lodged, and no material evidence was presented to establish compliance with the requirements.