1988 (6) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of duty paid under Central Excise Notification No. 80/80.
2. Applicability of the notification due to failure to claim the benefit at the time of clearance.
3. Interpretation of the law regarding retrospective entitlement to duty exemption.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved a claim for refund of duty paid by the appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture of P and P medicines falling under Item No. 14E of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The duty exemption was governed by Central Excise Notification No. 80/80, which exempted certain goods from duty subject to specified conditions. The appellants did not claim duty exemption under this notification during the relevant period but later filed claims for refund of the duty paid.

2. The primary issue revolved around the failure of the appellants to claim the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 at the time of clearance of goods, leading to the dismissal of their refund claims by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the dismissal on the grounds that the appellants were not ignorant but careless in not availing themselves of the notification. The appellants argued that despite not claiming the benefit initially, they were still entitled to the exemption as they filed the claims within the stipulated time.

3. The Tribunal considered relevant legal precedents, including the Bombay High Court judgment in Gear Tyres of India Ltd. v. Union of India and a decision by the Tribunal in Sahu Cylinders & Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras. These cases highlighted that a mistake in not claiming a benefit should not disentitle a party from seeking a refund if the claim is made within the statutory period. The Tribunal, applying these principles, held that the appellants could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 solely based on their failure to claim it at the time of duty payment.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for a fresh consideration of the claim in light of Notification No. 80/80 and other relevant legal provisions. The decision emphasized that the appellants should not be deprived of the duty exemption retrospectively due to the procedural lapse of not claiming the benefit initially, as long as the statutory requirements for refund were met.