1986 (1) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excise duty paid on goods meant for export brought back for repacking and re-export.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order granting a refund of excise duty paid on goods meant for export, which were brought back for repacking and re-export. The respondents filed a refund claim for the duty paid on goods sent for export but brought back for repacking and re-export to Singapore. The permission to bring back the goods for repacking and re-export was granted under Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents complied with all conditions stipulated by Rule 173M for bringing back the goods. The Department challenged the refund granted by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).

The main issue was whether the refund granted to the respondents was legally sustainable. The learned SDR argued that the permission granted for repacking and re-export was administrative and not quasi-judicial, thus the refund claim should not be allowed. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the exercise of power under Rule 173M was quasi-judicial in nature. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of acting justly and fairly in administrative decisions, blurring the line between administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The Tribunal highlighted that the grant of refund was a consequence of the permission granted under Rule 173M, provided the respondents complied with the stipulations.

The Tribunal held that the interpretation that repacking was not envisaged under Rule 173M was incorrect. Repacking is inherent in processes like remaking or reconditioning, which are allowed under the rule. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents had followed all requirements and conditions of Rule 173M, making the refund claim valid. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the legality of the refund granted to the respondents for the excise duty paid on goods brought back for repacking and re-export.