1996 (10) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide on the refund claim of Central Excise duty paid on exported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment involves a case where the appellants filed a revision application challenging the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowing the department's application and setting aside the original order granting a refund of Central Excise duty paid on exported goods. The Government disposed of the revision application, directing the appellants to move to the appropriate forum, which led to the filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Tribunal due to a genuine misunderstanding by the appellants regarding the required procedure. The Tribunal observed that the jurisdiction issue appeared debatable during the process.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the export of goods was not disputed, duly documented, and approved by the Custom House. The Assistant Collector had granted the refund after confirming the export. The counsel contended that even if the department claimed an erroneous refund, the statutory requirement of issuing a notice within the prescribed time limit under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act was not met. The counsel cited relevant legal decisions and judgments to support their argument.

The Departmental Representative opposed the arguments put forward by the appellant's counsel, leading to a thorough consideration of the submissions and records by the Tribunal. The Tribunal delved into the question of jurisdiction, highlighting the statutory provision under Section 35B that restricts the Tribunal from deciding on appeals related to rebates of excise duty on goods exported outside India. The Tribunal analyzed the circumstances of the case, where the goods were initially intended for export but later diverted for home consumption, with the duty paid and subsequently exported. The Government's decision was based on the duty payment when the goods were intended for home consumption, categorizing the claim as a refund rather than a rebate.

The Tribunal disagreed with the Government's decision, emphasizing that the nature of the claim should be determined by the substance of the action, not merely the timing of duty payment. Refund, including rebate on exported goods, falls under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, in this case, since the claim was directly linked to the export of goods, it constituted a rebate of excise duty and not a refund. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was beyond its jurisdiction and returned the papers to the appellants accordingly.