1997 (12) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the claim for refund of duty paid on goods manufactured by the appellants is time-barred.
2. Whether the subsequent claim for refund of duty paid on goods manufactured can be considered as an amendment of the original refund claim.
3. Whether the appellants' plastic cabinets were exempt under Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971.
4. Whether the appellants' claim for refund based on different grounds can be considered as a continuation of the previous claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing plastic cabinets and trading in accessories. They purchased accessories and paid excise duty on them. They later applied for a refund of the duty paid on the accessories. The Department raised objections on grounds of non-retrospective application of exemption notification and time bar. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on limitation grounds. The appellants appealed, arguing that adding the duty paid on cabinets to the refund claim was not time-barred. The lower appellate authority considered the claim for cabinets as a new claim and held it time-barred. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating both claims were independent and separate, rejecting the appeal for the refund claim on goods manufactured.

2. The appellants initially filed a refund claim for accessories bought out items, contending they only manufactured cabinets exempt under Notification No. 89/79. The Department issued a show cause notice challenging the claim's retrospective application and time bar. The appellants later submitted a refund claim for cabinets manufactured by them under Notification No. 68/71. The claim was rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities, stating the second claim was distinct from the first, based on different grounds and for a different amount, and thus time-barred.

3. The appellants argued that their plastic cabinets were exempt under Notification No. 68/71. However, the claim for refund based on this notification was rejected by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector as time-barred. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the claims for accessories and cabinets were separate and could not be considered a continuation of each other.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the subsequent claim for refund of duty paid on goods manufactured by the appellants could not be considered an amendment of the original refund claim for accessories. The claims were based on different grounds, for different items, and different amounts, making the subsequent claim time-barred. The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decisions, rejecting the appeal for the refund claim on goods manufactured by the appellants.