1998 (5) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of duty on re-manufactured goods, rejection of claim by Asst. Commissioner, variation in goods description and value, limitation period for refund claim, disagreement on price variation between parties, re-examination of the issue.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a claim for refund of duty on goods initially cleared to a customer and later returned. The appellant re-manufactured the returned goods and dispatched them to other customers, seeking a refund under Rule 173L. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim citing improper identification of re-manufactured goods due to variations in description, specification, and value compared to the original consignment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, also deeming the claim time-barred as it exceeded the 6-month limit from the duty payment date.

Challenging the decision, the appellant's counsel referenced a previous appeal involving the same appellant, arguing for a similar outcome. The respondent's representative highlighted discrepancies in the value of the remade goods compared to the original consignment, suggesting they were unrelated. The presiding judge mentioned a prior case with similar issues and emphasized the importance of considering variations in the number of packages and the time bar aspect, which were raised for the first time by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Further, the respondent's representative contended that the significant price difference between the re-processed goods and the original ones indicated they were distinct. However, the judge clarified that price fluctuations alone do not negate the connection between the returned goods and the re-manufactured ones. He explained that price changes could result from various factors like time or additional components in the re-made goods. Emphasizing that as long as the returned goods were utilized in the re-manufacturing process, the activity qualified for benefits under Rule 173L. The judge noted discrepancies in price and content between the original and re-manufactured goods, necessitating a reassessment by the adjudicating authority.

Consequently, the judge set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeal for reconsideration based on the observations made and directing a re-examination of the issue in line with the mentioned factors and the findings from a related order. The appeal was granted on these terms for further assessment and determination.