2001 (12) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to refund of Central Excise duty on goods returned for reprocessing.
2. Interpretation of Rule 173L regarding refund eligibility.
3. Conflict between Single Member and Division Bench decisions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to refund of Central Excise duty on goods returned for reprocessing
The case involved a manufacturer of leather footwear who filed a refund claim for duty paid on goods returned for reprocessing. The goods were subsequently exported after reprocessing. The question was whether the manufacturer was entitled to a refund of duty paid on goods cleared for home consumption. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund, citing Rule 173L(I)(iv) which allows refund of duty originally paid but not in excess of duty payable after reprocessing. However, the appellate tribunal noted that duty becomes payable when goods are removed from the factory, and in this case, the manufacturer was entitled to a refund upon the return of goods for reprocessing, as long as the necessary conditions were met.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 173L regarding refund eligibility
The tribunal analyzed Rule 173L, which allows refund of duty paid on goods returned for reprocessing, subject to certain conditions. The Division Bench decision in a previous case clarified that as long as goods were initially removed on payment of duty and the refund claimed does not exceed the duty payable on reprocessed goods, the refund is admissible under Rule 173L. The tribunal emphasized that the focus should be on the duty paid on the returned goods and not on the duty payable on the reprocessed goods. As long as procedural requirements are met, the refund is eligible under Rule 173L.

Issue 3: Conflict between Single Member and Division Bench decisions
The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a Single Member decision that contradicted a Division Bench decision. The tribunal noted that the Single Member decision held duty leviable as nil for exported goods, thus denying the refund. However, the tribunal found that the Division Bench decision clarified the eligibility for a refund under Rule 173L, emphasizing that the duty paid on returned goods is the key factor for refund eligibility. As the refund claimed did not exceed the duty payable on reprocessed goods, the tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and allowed the manufacturer's claim for refund.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the manufacturer's appeal for refund of Central Excise duty paid on goods returned for reprocessing and subsequent export.