1997 (5) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of duty under Notification No. 123/81-C.E.
2. Retroactive effect of CT-3 Certificate for excisable goods.
3. Eligibility of appellant for refund as per E.O.U. exemption.
4. Procedural compliance for claiming refund under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of duty paid by the appellant company for the clearance of a part of a Weigh-Bridge Structure to a consignee who was a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (E.O.U.). The consignee did not have a CT-3 Certificate at the time of clearance, leading to the duty payment by the appellant. Subsequently, the consignee executed a B-16 Bond, and the appellant filed a refund claim as per Notification No. 123/81-C.E., which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant's appeal was based on the argument that the CT-3 Certificate was produced later and should allow for the refund, despite the procedural deviation beyond their control.

The appellant contended that the CT-3 Certificate was eventually produced, and the benefit of the Notification should be extended to them, as the consignee was a 100% E.O.U. The Revenue, however, argued against giving retrospective effect to the CT-3 Certificate, stating compliance difficulties with the Notification's procedures. They also claimed that the exemption under the Notification applied to the E.O.U. and not the appellant, questioning the appellant's right to claim the refund.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and held that the exemption under the Notification was for excisable goods used in the E.O.U.'s factory, and the duty refund should be claimed by the manufacturers subject to Central Excise Act provisions. It was noted that the consignee was a 100% E.O.U., and the CT-3 Certificate was eventually produced. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial benefits should not be denied for procedural deviations and allowed the refund, subject to the goods being utilized by the E.O.U. and the duty burden not being passed on by the appellant to the consignee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the refund of duty under Notification No. 123/81-C.E. based on the production of the CT-3 Certificate and the utilization of goods by the 100% E.O.U., while ensuring the duty burden was not transferred to the consignee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.