1989 (12) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the entitlement of the appellants to claim set off of duty paid on an input, the rejection of the claim for set off by the Assistant Collector, the subsequent appeal decision in favor of the appellants, the claim for refund in cash due to the rescinded notification, and the question of whether such cash refund can be claimed.

Entitlement to Set Off and Rejection of Claim:
The appellants, manufacturers of petrochemicals, sought to claim set off of Central Excise Duty paid on the input 'Cobalt Octate' used in manufacturing their products. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the claim, citing that set off was not permitted on estimated quantities of input used. However, the Ld. Appellate Collector later upheld the appellants' eligibility for set off, leading to the present appeal.

Claim for Cash Refund:
Following the rescission of the notification allowing set off, the appellants applied for a refund in cash for the duty paid on 'Cobalt Octate'. The Assistant Collector denied the refund claim on the basis that the appellants had not paid any Excise Duty, a decision which was upheld in the appeal. The main issue at hand was whether a cash refund could be claimed under these circumstances.

Precedents and Legal Interpretation:
The appellants cited various cases to support their contention that cash refund could be claimed, including cases where similar notifications were involved. The Tribunal examined these cases and noted that the principle had been established that set off could be claimed by way of cash refund. Additionally, a recent order by the Tribunal further supported the appellants' position that cash refund was permissible.

Decision and Ruling:
In light of the legal precedents and interpretations, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing them to claim a refund in cash for the duty paid on 'Cobalt Octate'. The impugned order denying the refund was set aside, and the Assistant Collector was directed to re-examine the refund claim after providing the appellants with an opportunity for representation or hearing. No relief was claimed in cross-objections, which were also disposed of accordingly.