2017 (4) TMI 90 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - time limitation - re-export of goods returned for repair - denial on the ground that the same was filed after six months from the date of payment of duty and hit by limitation - Held that - the provisions of Rule 173H which are followed by the appellant for receiving the duty paid goods back and removing them after reconditioning or repairing would not amount to discharge of duty liability when the goods are cleared after reconditioning. Since duty liability on the goods exported was discharged and the refund claim was filed beyond six months, provision of Section 11B gets attracted and refund claim has to be held as hit by limitation - refund rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement for refund of duty paid on exported goods beyond the six-month period.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. P/673/96, dated 5-11-1996. The primary issue for consideration was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of the duty paid on goods, specifically scooters, cleared for export. The appellant had initially cleared the scooters for home consumption, paying the duty to the dealers. Subsequently, some scooters were returned for reconditioning/repairing. During the relevant period from July 1995 to January 1996, the appellant filed an intimation of the returned goods and exported them under bond without payment of duty. The appellant then applied for a refund of the duty paid on these goods. However, both lower authorities rejected the refund claim on the grounds that it was filed after six months from the date of duty payment, rendering it time-barred.

The appellant argued that no duty should be levied on goods exported, hence the duty initially paid should be refunded. The appellant relied on a decision by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the findings of the lower authorities. Upon reviewing the records, it was found that the refund claim was indeed filed beyond the stipulated six-month period from the date of duty payment. The provisions followed by the appellant for receiving duty-paid goods back and exporting them after reconditioning did not discharge the duty liability upon export. As the duty liability on the exported goods was discharged and the refund claim was time-barred, Section 11B came into play, making the claim hit by limitation. The first appellate authority correctly noted that the appellant should have followed specific provisions to claim a refund of duty paid, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the appeal by the appellant was found to be without merit.

Therefore, the impugned order was upheld as correct and legal, and the appeal was rejected.