2003 (12) TMI 78 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dismissing refund application.
2. Discrepancy in application submission date.
3. Delay in rendering accounts for remaking machines.
4. Discretion of Chief Commissioner to relax rules for refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners appealed against the dismissal of their refund application for excise duty paid on remade machines. The Commissioner (Appeals) and CEGAT upheld the dismissal citing late submission of accounts and application.

2. The petitioners contended that their refund application was submitted within time, contrary to CEGAT's finding. Evidence proved the application was submitted on 23-2-1998, not on 11-8-1998 as stated by CEGAT. This factual error led to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. While the delay in rendering accounts post-remaking was acknowledged, Rule 173L(4) allowed the Chief Commissioner discretion to relax such provisions. The court noted that a slight delay in accounts submission should not warrant rejection, especially when the refund application was timely and authorities were satisfied with remaking.

4. The court emphasized that if the petitioners had approached the authority in time, relaxation under Rule 173L(4) would likely have been granted. Considering the unreasonable delay in seeking such relaxation, the court exercised its discretion to direct the authorities to condone the delay in rendering accounts and ordered the refund payment within eight weeks.

Overall, the High Court quashed the CEGAT's order, directing the refund payment to the petitioner Company, and disposed of the petition in favor of the petitioners, without costs.