1988 (8) TMI 299 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim for central excise duty on liquid Oxygen gas clearances
- Compliance with Chapter X Procedure under Notification No. 224/75-C.E.
- Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Collector and Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)
- Interpretation of Rules 192, 193, and 194 of the Central Excise Rules
- Validity of L-6 license, C.T.-2 certificate, and B-8 bond
- Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 224/75-C.E.
- Provision for refund of duty paid

Refund Claim and Compliance with Chapter X Procedure:
The appellants submitted a refund claim for central excise duty paid on liquid Oxygen gas clearances to Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited. The claim was based on following Chapter X Procedure under Notification No. 224/75-C.E. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim due to the absence of a valid C.T.-2 certificate and B-8 bond, leading to the dismissal of an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).

Interpretation of Rules 192, 193, and 194:
The appellants argued that they fulfilled all requirements under Chapter X Procedure, including obtaining permission under Rule 192, maintaining records, and submitting returns. The L-6 license, C.T.-2 certificate, and B-8 bond were valid and in compliance with the rules. The Tribunal analyzed the documents and found that the requirements under Rule 192 were indeed fulfilled by the appellants.

Validity of License, Certificate, and Bond:
The L-6 license held by Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited was valid, along with the extended bank guarantee and the C.T.-2 certificate issued for the period in question. Despite delays in issuing the certificate, it was effective from the relevant date, covering the disputed period. The Tribunal concluded that the requirements of Rule 192 were met in this case.

Eligibility for Exemption and Provision for Refund:
The goods cleared and supplied during the period in question were found eligible for exemption under Notification No. 224/75-C.E. The appellants were compelled to pay duty based on a Superintendent's directive, but as the C.T.-2 certificate was effective from the start date, the duty realization was deemed erroneous. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a refund within the prescribed time limit of six months.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and documents presented, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, granting a refund of the duty to the appellants.