1987 (6) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim under Notification 132/68 for Ammonia Compressors.
2. Interpretation of the term "as far as may be" in the notification.
3. Requirement of following Chapter X procedure for claiming exemption.
4. Eligibility for refund when duty is paid by a third party.
5. Pre-conditions for availing benefits of the notification.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) order regarding a refund claim for two Ammonia Compressors under Notification 132/68. The Appellants purchased the compressors and used them for cold storage within a year, seeking a refund of Rs. 33,408. However, the claim was rejected as the Chapter X procedure was not followed before clearance.

2. The Appellants argued that the wording "As far as may be" in the notification did not make Chapter X procedure mandatory. They cited a Madras High Court decision to support their stance. The term was analyzed to mean following principles unless impossible in specific circumstances, not as a complete waiver of requirements.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants failed to provide a valid reason for not following Chapter X requirements. The procedure ensured premises suitability and revenue safety. The necessity of obtaining L-6 license and C.T.-2 certificate before clearance was emphasized, indicating a failure to meet basic prerequisites for claiming exemption.

4. It was highlighted that the duty was paid by the manufacturer, not the Appellants, which posed a challenge in claiming a refund. Precedents from Gauhati and Calcutta High Courts were cited to support the principle that a non-payer could not claim a refund. The Appellants' reliance on a Madras High Court decision was deemed irrelevant due to differing circumstances.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants did not fulfill the conditions outlined in the notification for claiming a refund. The failure to follow Chapter X procedure, non-payment of duty directly to the government, and lack of essential licenses before clearance led to the rejection of the appeal. The decision aligned with the requirement of strict compliance with statutory procedures for availing exemptions.