2015 (9) TMI 35 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Jurisdiction of Court - Held that - Appellant in the present proceedings is a merchant exporter and not a person who undertook first manufacture and subsequent processing of the returned goods. Appellant is not concerned as to what activities are undertaken by TGBL. Appellant will be interested to get rebate claim of the duty paid on 20.09.1997 before the returned goods were allowed to be cleared under Rule 173 H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, on the documents relating to export of goods. Rule 173 L of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be followed only by the manufacture/re-manufacture of the goods and not by the merchant exporter. Revenue did not challenge the second clearance made by TGBL after re-processing holding that duty was required to be paid by TGBL for the second time and get refund under Rule 173 L for the earlier duty paid. Under the present factual matrix appellants claim cannot be considered to be a refund claim of Rule 173 L. As the main dispute agitated by the appellant is that their claim is one of rebate and not refund under Rule 173 L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, this Bench agree with the contention of the Learned Advocate that it is a case of rebate and CESTAT does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of CESTAT to entertain appeal regarding rebate claim vs. refund claim under Rule 173 L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of the claim by the first appellate authority, who treated the rebate claim as a refund claim under Rule 173 L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that the claim was a rebate claimed by the merchant exporter, not the manufacturer of goods, citing relevant case law.

2. The Revenue argued that the repacking of goods amounted to remanufacture and fell under the category of refund under Rule 173 L. They highlighted the difference in the quantity of goods brought back for reprocessing and those finally exported by the appellant. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' decision.

3. The Tribunal considered both arguments and examined the case records. It was established that the appellant, a merchant exporter, was not involved in the first manufacture or subsequent processing of the returned goods. The Tribunal noted that Rule 173 L applies to the manufacture/re-manufacture of goods, not to merchant exporters. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention that their claim was a rebate, not a refund under Rule 173 L. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

4. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as filed without jurisdiction. The appellant was granted the liberty to file an appeal with the appropriate authority to address the rebate claim issue effectively.