1990 (10) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claims under Notification 80/80.
2. Requirement of declaration for availing exemption under Notification 80/80.
3. Eligibility for refund on captively consumed inputs.
4. Interpretation of limitation period for refund claims.
5. Exclusion of captively consumed inputs for calculating aggregate value of clearances.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed two refund claims under Notification 80/80 for Synthetic Organic Dyestuff. The Assistant Collector held one claim time-barred and the other partially time-barred. The Collector (Appeals) agreed on limitation but rejected the appeal due to lack of declaration for exemption. The Tribunal found the limitation period starts from the date of payment of duty, not the end of the financial year, as per Sec. 11B. The appeal was allowed for the claim dated 5-4-1982 post 4-10-1981 but rejected for the claim dated 27-4-1982 as time-barred.

2. The Collector (Appeals) held the appellants ineligible for exemption due to the absence of a declaration, which the appellants argued was not required. The Tribunal found the requirement of a declaration not explicitly stated in the notification cannot be imposed. The appellants' claim was based on clearances, not covered by the declaration requirement. The Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) finding on the declaration and ruled in favor of the appellants on this issue.

3. The appellants sought a refund for captively consumed inputs, claiming exemption under Notification 80/80. However, Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules state that captively consumed inputs are eligible for exemption only if the finished goods are not fully exempt from duty. As the finished product was fully exempt, the captively consumed inputs were not eligible for exemption. The Tribunal held the lower authorities correctly excluded captively consumed inputs for calculating the aggregate value of clearances for the exemption.

4. The Tribunal clarified that the limitation period for refund claims starts from the date of duty payment, not the end of the financial year, as per Sec. 11B. The Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) finding on limitation and upheld the Assistant Collector's order on limitation with reference to the refund claims.

5. The appellants claimed the value of captively consumed inputs should be excluded for calculating the aggregate value of clearances under Notification 80/80. The Tribunal agreed that captively consumed inputs cannot be eligible for exemption when the finished product is fully exempt. The lower authorities correctly excluded the value of captively consumed inputs for computing the aggregate value of clearances for the exemption. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to consider the refund claim only for the finished product, not the input, in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the refund claim dated 5-4-1982 post 4-10-1981 but rejected the claim dated 27-4-1982 as time-barred. The requirement of a declaration for exemption under Notification 80/80 was found not applicable. Captively consumed inputs were not eligible for exemption due to the fully exempt finished product. The limitation period for refund claims starts from the date of duty payment. The exclusion of captively consumed inputs for calculating the aggregate value of clearances was upheld. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →