2003 (1) TMI 145 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availability of refund of Central Excise duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeals filed by M/s. LML Ltd. revolve around the issue of whether they are entitled to a refund of Central Excise duty under Rule 173L. The Appellants, who manufacture two-wheelers and parts, had some two-wheelers returned to them for re-processing under Rule 173L. They filed refund claims for the duty paid on these goods. The Revenue rejected the claims citing reasons such as goods being exported under bond without duty payment, delay in filing D-3 intimation, and limitation issues. The Appellants argued that their refund claims were filed within the time limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. They relied on legal precedents to support their position, emphasizing that the limitation period starts from the relevant date and that delays in procedural requirements should not bar refund claims.

Regarding the delay in filing D-3 Intimation, the Appellants justified the delay due to a factory holiday, citing legal decisions that procedural delays should not hinder refund claims. They argued that the refund claim should not be denied based on the timing of the filing concerning the clearance of reprocessed goods. Legal precedents were cited to support their stance that Rule 173L does not require immediate clearance of reprocessed goods for refund eligibility. The Appellants contended that the refund should be granted even if the goods were exported after reprocessing without duty payment, as long as the duty payable on the goods after reprocessing is not exceeded.

In response, the Departmental Representative argued that Rule 173L requires strict compliance with procedural requirements, including timely intimation of goods re-entering the factory and subsequent clearance on payment of duty. They contended that if goods are not cleared on payment of duty after reprocessing, no refund is applicable. The legal position was supported by the proviso to Rule 173L(1), which limits the refund to the duty payable on reprocessed goods. The Department emphasized that the duty should not be paid twice for a refund claim to be valid.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and agreed with the Appellants on several points. They held that the refund claim was timely filed within the six-month limit from the receipt of goods, excluding the relevant date. The Tribunal acknowledged the satisfactory reasons for the delay in filing D-3 Intimation and emphasized that the purpose of the intimation is to verify goods, which was eventually done. They also agreed that the refund could be granted even for goods exported without duty payment, as long as the duty payable after reprocessing is not exceeded. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to determine the duty payable on reprocessed goods and ensure compliance with refund eligibility criteria. The Tribunal upheld the Appellants' right to file refund claims within the specified time frame, even if goods were not immediately cleared after reprocessing.