1997 (1) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57F(3) in relation to export of goods under bond.
2. Eligibility of manufacturer for refund claim under Rule 57F(3).
3. Compliance with Notification 85/87-C.E. for refund of specified duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi challenging the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the interpretation of Rule 57F(3) in the context of exporting goods under bond. The Collector (Appeals) held that the refund claim is admissible only to the manufacturer who exports the goods directly and not to those who export through merchant exporters. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been decided previously, and following the same reasoning, the present appeals were disposed of accordingly.

2. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing Aquadent fluoride toothpaste, filed a refund claim under Notification 85/87-C.E. for unutilized credit in their RG 23A Part-II. The respondents were supporting manufacturers for M/s. Dolphin Sales (P) Ltd., with whom they had an agreement for manufacturing and supplying toothpaste for subsequent export. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim, but the Collector (Appeals) allowed it. The Tribunal considered whether Rule 57F(3) applied to manufacturers who were not the direct exporters.

3. The Department argued that the respondents were attempting to gain dual benefits by meeting export obligations under DEEC and claiming Modvat credit on inputs, which was impermissible. The Department cited para 246(1) of the import policy 1989-91 and contended that the refund of Modvat credit was not admissible since the goods were not exported directly by the manufacturer. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Rule 57F(3) and the requirements of Notification 85/87, finding that the refund claim was within the legal framework and upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, stating that the manufacturer of the exported goods was eligible for the refund claim under Rule 57F(3) and had complied with the necessary regulations, including Notification 85/87. The appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.