2001 (5) TMI 501 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 57S(2) and Rule 57S(8) for clearance of capital goods without payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. The appellants sought a refund claim of Rs. 3,65,447.00 for clearing capital goods to their job worker under Rule 57S(2) but later wanted to clear the same goods under Rule 57S(8) without duty payment. They applied for permission, which was granted but later withdrawn. The Dy. Commissioner rejected the refund claim stating the goods were rightly removed under Rule 57S(2) and the refund claim was filed after five months from clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, emphasizing that permission under Rule 57S(8) was not applicable post facto. The permission was withdrawn as the goods were already cleared under Rule 57S(2).

2. The appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing that the goods were sent as capital goods and should have been cleared under Rule 57S(8). The appellants emphasized that even though permission was not initially obtained, it was later granted and withdrawn abruptly. Reference was made to a CEGAT decision in a similar case. The respondents supported the original authority's findings.

3. The appellants claimed a refund for duty paid on sending goods under Rule 57S(2) but believed they were entitled to clear and receive them back under Rule 57S(8) without duty payment. The relevant provisions of Rule 57S(8) were cited, emphasizing the need for permission from the Commissioner and the obligation to bring back the goods within a specified period.

4. The appellants acknowledged the requirement for permission to send goods without duty under Rule 57S(8, which they failed to obtain initially. They applied for permission later, which was withdrawn due to non-disclosure of prior clearance under Rule 57S(2). The failure to bring back the goods within the specified period also invalidated their claim for refund. Compliance with the rules was crucial, and the appellants did not meet the necessary conditions for refund eligibility.

5. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the appellants did not fulfill the conditions stipulated by the rules for clearing goods without duty payment. The case law cited by the appellants was deemed irrelevant as the conditions under Rule 57S were not met. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to the refund claimed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the refund claim, emphasizing the non-compliance with Rule 57S provisions regarding clearance of capital goods without payment of duty. The appellants' failure to meet the conditions specified in the rules rendered them ineligible for the refund sought.