2007 (11) TMI 306 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of rebate - revision application - Held that - It cannot be construed that after return of the revision application, the very same paper book was to be presented along with a petition as per the provisions for condonation of delay. From the decision of this Court, it will be evident that the Revenue was allowed to take back the revision application for filing a proper revision application along with a petition for condonation of delay, and for the said reason the matter was remitted to the revisional authority for determination of the application. In view of the factual position and in the writ petition the company having not satisfied the Court that the amount so claimed, for that the burden has not been passed on any other person, it was not open to learned Single Judge to interfere with the order passed by the revisional authority.

Summary

Issues:
- Claim of refund of rebate amount
- Eligibility under Rule 173-H(2)
- Discrepancy in description of goods
- Original packing of exported goods
- Condonation of delay in revision application

Claim of refund of rebate amount:
The respondent, a company, claimed a refund of Rs. 6,84,590 for duty paid on 2000 Kgs. of Cresol Chloride. The company's claim was based on the reprocessing and export of the material, for which duty had already been paid. The Revenue rejected the claim citing various grounds, including discrepancies in descriptions and packing of goods. The company's appeal was allowed by the appellate authority, but later disallowed by the revisional authority. The matter was then brought before the High Court through a writ petition.

Eligibility under Rule 173-H(2):
The Revenue contended that the company was not eligible to bring back 2000 Kgs. of goods to its factory under Rule 173-H(2). The company had obtained permission for re-entry and reprocessing of the material, but the Revenue raised objections regarding the eligibility criteria. This issue formed a crucial part of the dispute over the claim for refund.

Discrepancy in description of goods and original packing:
Another ground for rejecting the refund claim was the discrepancy in the description of goods between delivery challan and export documents. Additionally, the original packing of the exported goods differed from the packing in which they were received by the company. These discrepancies raised questions about the proper documentation and handling of the goods, impacting the validity of the refund claim.

Condonation of delay in revision application:
The Collector of Central Excise filed a revision application after a significant delay, leading to a dispute over the condonation of the delay. The company argued that the application was a fresh one and thus barred by limitation. The Revenue claimed that the delay was due to the High Court's order, allowing for the re-presentation of the revision application. The issue of condonation of delay in the revision application became a focal point in the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the company. The Court emphasized the procedural requirements for filing a revision application and the importance of establishing that the burden of duty had not been passed on to others for a refund claim to succeed. The judgment highlighted the need to adhere to legal provisions and rules while considering refund claims and revision applications, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue and dismissing the company's petition.