1989 (4) TMI 233 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Refund claim for excise duty on cotton fabrics; Compliance with Rule 173-L for refund eligibility; Interpretation of the term "remaking" under Rule 173-L; Denial of refund based on procedural lapse; Applicability of Rule 56-B and Rule 96-D for duty payment.

Analysis:
The respondent company filed a refund claim for excise duty paid on cotton fabrics cleared for processing. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, stating non-compliance with Rule 173-L, as the process of printing was considered a new process. However, the Collector (Appeals) allowed the refund, emphasizing that duty cannot be charged twice on the same goods. The appellant-Collector argued that the refund must adhere to statutory provisions, and since Rule 173-L was not applicable, the claim should be denied. The respondent contended that printing falls under the term "remaking" in Rule 173-L and was guided by the Range Officer to claim the refund under this rule. The consultant highlighted that a procedural lapse should not deprive the assessee of a substantive benefit, citing relevant Tribunal judgments.

The Tribunal judge, after considering both parties' arguments, noted that the respondent could have followed alternative procedures under Rule 56-B or Rule 96-D to avoid paying duty twice on the same fabric. Regardless of whether the process qualified under Rule 173-L, the judge agreed with the lower appellate authority that a procedural error should not obstruct rightful benefits to the assessee. Citing precedents, including the case of Sundram Fasteners Ltd. v. CCE, Madurai, the judge dismissed the appeal and directed the refund to the respondent company. The judgment underscores the principle that substantive benefits should not be denied based solely on procedural lapses, ensuring fairness in excise duty refund claims.