1997 (9) TMI 292 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty paid on repaired goods under Rule 173H.
2. Interpretation of Rule 173H regarding applicability to goods manufactured in another factory.
3. Effect of the subsequent amendment to Rule 173H.
4. Consideration of marginal notes in statutory interpretation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant received a water cooler for repairs in its factory, which it had not manufactured, paid duty on it upon clearance, and later sought a refund of the duty under Rule 173H. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim citing limitation and the rule's inapplicability to goods manufactured in another factory. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the claim regarding limitation but upheld the inapplicability of Rule 173H, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that Rule 173H did not restrict its application to goods not manufactured in the repairing factory. The Collector (Appeals) considered an amendment to the rule in 1988, adding "the goods whether manufactured in his factory or any other factory," as clarificatory with retrospective effect. However, the appellant contested this interpretation, highlighting the change in the rule's caption after the amendment, indicating an enlargement of scope. The Departmental Representative supported this view, asserting that the amendment expanded the rule's ambit.

3. Rule 173H, as it stood during the relevant period, allowed the retention or bringing in of duty-paid goods for repair without specifying that the goods must have been manufactured in the same factory. The Tribunal noted that the plain language of the rule did not necessitate the duty payment by the assessee, supporting the conclusion that the amendment was clarificatory. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no prohibition on bringing in goods for repair under the rule at the time of the incident.

4. The Tribunal addressed the Collector (Appeals)' reliance on the marginal note for interpreting the rule, citing case law that marginal notes are not to be used for statutory construction. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Departmental Representative's distinction between marginal and caption notes, referring to legal sources stating that words at the beginning of a section, regardless of terminology, are considered marginal notes. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, with the possibility of consequential relief subject to legal provisions.