1986 (4) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 178/77-C.E. and subsequent Notification No. 295/77-C.E.
- Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing finished goods.
- Compliance with procedural requirements for availing set-off duty.
- Date from which refund claim should be granted.
- Application of previous legal judgments on double taxation and procedural compliance.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 178/77-C.E. and subsequent Notification No. 295/77-C.E. regarding the entitlement to a refund of excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacturing of finished goods. The appellants, manufacturers of electric bulbs, sought permission from the Department to avail set-off duty under these notifications. The Superintendent granted permission from 17-5-1979, subject to the submission of a statement showing the quantity of inputs used. The appellants claimed a refund for the period 21-3-1979 to 16-5-1979, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Appellate Collector.

The main contention was whether the furnishing of the statement in the prescribed proforma was a procedural formality or a vital condition for granting relief under the exemption notification. The Consultant for the appellants argued that the submission of the statement was a procedural formality and cited previous judgments emphasizing the spirit of the law over strict compliance. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the statements were crucial as per the notifications and that the refund should only be granted from the date of actual submission, i.e., 2-6-1979.

The Tribunal held that the furnishing of the statement in the prescribed proforma was indeed a condition precedent for granting relief under the notifications. The delay in submission and the subsequent grant of permission from 17-5-1979 indicated that the appellants did not earn the right to avail set-off duty prior to 2-6-1979 when the statement was submitted. The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments cited by the Consultant, stating that they were not applicable to the present case due to differing factual circumstances.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that there were no merits in the appellant's claim for a refund. The decision highlighted the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements outlined in exemption notifications and upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim for the period before 2-6-1979.