2011 (12) TMI 106 - AT - Central Excise

Refund application under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of goods cleared on payment of duty and brought back for refining, reconditioning etc. and thereafter once again cleared on payment of duty Held that - In absence of detailed documents & worksheets the case is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration of the matter taking into account the documentary evidence to be submitted by the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Refund application under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rejection of claim by lower adjudicating authority on grounds of non-compliance with conditions and loss of original identity of goods - Appeal before lower appellate authority - Consideration of detailed accounts and processes undertaken.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Application under Rule 173L:
The appellant filed a refund application under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for goods cleared on payment of duty, brought back for refining, reconditioning, and then cleared again on payment of duty. The claimed refund amount was Rs.3,07,843. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing non-compliance with specified conditions and loss of original goods' identity due to re-melting. The appeal was made before the lower appellate authority.

2. Compliance with Conditions and Processes Undertaken:
The lower appellate authority held that re-melting constituted remanufacture/remaking, making the refund under Rule 173L admissible. However, the claim was rejected due to the appellant's failure to maintain proper records of the quantity and value of goods received back and processed. The appellant argued they had maintained detailed accounts as required but were not considered by the authorities.

3. Consideration of Evidence and Remand:
Upon careful consideration, it was found that the appellant re-manufactured and cleared a different quantity of goods than originally returned, leading to a mismatch. The appellant claimed to have maintained detailed records and offered to submit them for review. The judgment set aside the lower authorities' decisions and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and granting the appellant an opportunity to present their case.

4. Conclusion - Appeal Allowed by Remand:
The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal through remand, directing a fresh review by the original adjudicating authority. This decision highlighted the significance of maintaining detailed records as required under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the considerations made by the tribunal, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for further review based on the submission of additional documentary evidence by the appellant.