1997 (1) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Grant of refund under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for Tungstin Carbide Powder.
Compliance with Rule 173L conditions for refund eligibility.
Interpretation of re-processing of goods under Rule 173L.
Requirement of showing re-processing within six months as per Rule 173L(3).
Limitation period for claiming refund under Section 11B(5)(B)(b).

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras pertained to the grant of a refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for Tungstin Carbide Powder, which had been returned after clearance and re-processed before being cleared again. The Lower Appellate Authority had found that the appellant had complied with all Rule 173L requirements and was entitled to the refund within the specified time frame. The appellant argued that the returned goods were converted into different products through a manufacturing process, making them ineligible for a refund under Rule 173L. The absence of the respondents led to the appeal being taken up for disposal without adjournment.

The Judicial Member considered the arguments presented by the Junior Departmental Representative (JDR) and reviewed the grounds of appeal. The JDR emphasized that Rule 173L imposes specific conditions for refund eligibility, which must all be met. He contended that the Lower Authority had not conclusively determined whether these conditions were satisfied, and therefore sought the reversal of the Lower Authority's decision.

Upon examination, the Judicial Member found that the appellant had fulfilled the procedural requirements of Rule 173L regarding the receipt, storage, and re-processing of the returned goods. The Revenue's objection was based on the assertion that the goods had been transformed into different products, which they argued was not permissible under Rule 173L. However, the Member upheld the Lower Authority's finding that the re-processing of Tungstin Carbide Powder into various grades fell within the scope of Rule 173L, dismissing the Revenue's argument.

Regarding Rule 173L(3), which mandates the rendering of an account of re-processing within six months of goods return, the Judicial Member noted the absence of findings by the Lower Authority on this aspect. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Lower Appellate Authority to assess compliance with Rule 173L(3). If the requirements were met, the appellant would be entitled to the refund, subject to the provisions of Section 11B. The Judicial Member concurred with the Lower Authority's determination that the claim was within the applicable time limit under Section 11B(5)(B)(b), thereby deciding the appeal in favor of the appellant.