1987 (6) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to refund claim under Notification No. 151/77-CE.
2. Compliance with Chapter X procedures of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to grant the refund.
4. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Payment of duty by suppliers versus respondents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Refund Claim under Notification No. 151/77-CE:

The respondents sought a refund of Rs. 8,65,965.06 for duty paid on electrolytic copper wire bars used in manufacturing electric motors and transformers, as per Notification No. 151/77-CE. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the claim, stating that Chapter X procedures were not followed. The Appellate Authority, however, found that the respondents maintained all necessary records and remanded the matter for reconsideration regarding the aspect of time bar alone.

2. Compliance with Chapter X Procedures of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:

The Assistant Collector held that the respondents did not procure non-duty paid goods, a requirement under Chapter X procedures. Although the respondents argued they had followed Rules 192-194 substantially, the Assistant Collector noted that they failed to furnish monthly returns as mandated by Rule 194(3). The Appellate Authority overlooked this non-compliance, leading to the conclusion that the respondents did not adhere strictly to Chapter X procedures.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to Grant the Refund:

The Assistant Collector's jurisdiction to grant the refund was challenged by the Revenue, citing that the duty was paid by the suppliers, not the respondents. The cited rulings (1977 E.L.T. (J65) and 1977 E.L.T. (J157)) supported the view that only the party who directly paid the duty could claim a refund.

4. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:

The respondents argued that Section 11B allows "any person" to claim a refund. However, the tribunal clarified that Section 11B(2) specifies that the refund application must be made by the person who paid the duty. Thus, the respondents, having not paid the duty themselves, were not entitled to claim the refund under this provision.

5. Payment of Duty by Suppliers versus Respondents:

The tribunal emphasized that the duty was paid by the suppliers, not the respondents. The respondents merely paid the price for the goods, which included the duty. The cited rulings (Akhil Bandav Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Others and Union of India and Other v. Silchar Electric Supply Company Ltd.) reinforced that a refund could only be claimed by the entity that directly paid the duty to the excise authorities.

Conclusion:

The tribunal concluded that the respondents were not entitled to the refund due to non-compliance with Chapter X procedures and because they did not directly pay the excise duty. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

← Previous Next →