1997 (1) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Identification of goods for refund claim under Rule 173L.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the refund claim of the appellants as the goods could not be verified and identified by the Sector Officer, leading to the appellants forfeiting their right to claim any refund under Rule 173L. The Asstt. Collector's order was considered lawful and confirmed due to the lack of appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Sector Officer.

2. The case involved the appellants, engaged in soap manufacturing, who cleared goods from one location to another but found them deteriorated. After reprocessing the goods, they applied for a refund under Rule 173L. However, their claim was rejected on the grounds of inability to identify the goods as those cleared under the relevant gate passes mentioned in the D-3 intimation.

3. The appellants argued that they had provided sufficient identifying particulars in the D-3 intimations, such as month of manufacture and weight, to establish the identity of the goods. They contended that the inspecting officer's remarks did not highlight any dissimilarity between the goods presented for inspection and those cleared under the gate passes. The appellants also raised concerns about the lack of action on their request for re-verification of the goods.

4. The appellants' advocate emphasized that the Collector (Appeals) erred in considering the remarks on the D-3 intimation as appealable and asserted that the appellants had contested those remarks by writing to the Supdt., Central Excise. The advocate argued that the appellants had indeed challenged the remarks, contrary to the Collector's findings.

5. The respondent Commissioner maintained that the lower authorities rightfully rejected the refund claim based on the inspecting officer's clear remarks that the goods were not identifiable with those cleared under the gate passes mentioned in the D-3 intimation.

6. Upon reviewing the D-3 intimation, the remarks of the inspecting officer, and the relevant gate passes, the Tribunal found that the identifying particulars provided in the GP-I were also included in the D-3 intimation. The Tribunal concluded that the remarks of the inspecting officer did not indicate any dissimilarity in the goods and that the appellants had fulfilled the requirements of Rule 173L. The lack of action on the request for re-verification further supported the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and deem the refund claim admissible.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, indicating that any consequential relief should be granted in accordance with the law.