2016 (12) TMI 1037 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Duty paid on captive consumption - chapter X of Central Excise rules 1944 - Held that - It is undisputed that the appellant has not followed any procedures for availing benefit of N/N. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992 - the original authority was justified in holding that In the instant case there is no mere technical lapse as the appellant failed to follow the mandatory conditions prescribed in the exemption N/N. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992 - the Order-in-Original is sustainable and needs no interference - appellants not eligible for refund - appeal rejected - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of Central Excise duty paid on manufacturing articles out of duty paid on captively manufactured moulds.
2. Compliance with procedures under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944 for refund eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order dated 31.08.2005 regarding the eligibility for a refund of Central Excise duty paid on manufacturing articles from duty paid on captively manufactured moulds. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. In the subsequent round of litigation, both lower authorities ruled against the appellant, rejecting their contentions.

2. The key issue in this case was whether the appellant, by not following the procedures outlined in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944, was entitled to a refund of duty paid on the moulds used for manufacturing plastic articles. The appellant did not adhere to the requirements for availing benefits under Notification No. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992.

3. The first appellate authority's findings were deemed correct in the context of the case. The authority emphasized that the appellant's failure to follow the procedures set out in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944, and the absence of a Classification List for claiming exemption benefits under Notification No. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992, constituted a lack of substantial compliance with the necessary conditions.

4. The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's findings, upholding the impugned order as legally sound and free from defects. The decision was considered appropriate, and the appeal was consequently dismissed. The order was pronounced in open court, affirming the rejection of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of eligibility for a refund of Central Excise duty and compliance with procedural requirements under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules 1944, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.