2013 (7) TMI 25 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of duty on the reprocessed goods - Period of limitation- Submission of documents within stipulated period - process of goods have been completed and presentation of accounts only after six months of return of goods to the factory, ignoring the stipulation of completion of process and submission of accounts within six months under sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944? - Held that - Plain reading of Rule 173L(3) reveals that the same specifies the time limit only for processing and for rendering the accounts before the authority concerned and not for clearance of the goods. That being the factual and legal position, the reason for rejection of the claim by the lower authorities has no legal basis, as rightly decided by the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 173L(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Eligibility for refund of duty on reprocessed goods - Interpretation of completion of process and submission of accounts within six months under sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L.

Analysis:
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding a refund claim made by the assessee under Rule 173L(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessee had received goods for repair within one year from the date of clearance and claimed a refund of excess duty paid after necessary re-work. The Assessing Authority rejected the refund claim, stating that the goods were cleared after processing beyond the six-month limitation from the date of re-entry. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the contravention of sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L. The Appellate Tribunal, however, set aside the lower authorities' orders, ruling that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements of Rule 173L(3) and that there was no mandatory provision to dispatch the goods to the same customer within six months.

The key contention revolved around the interpretation of Rule 173L(3) of the Central Excise Rules 1944, which states that no refund shall be paid until the processes are completed and accounts are rendered to the Collector within six months of the return of goods to the factory. The rule does not impose a time limit for the clearance of goods, only for processing and account submission. The Tribunal correctly determined that the reason for rejecting the refund claim by the lower authorities lacked a legal basis. The judgment emphasized that the factual and legal position supported the appellant's claim, as the rule did not mandate the clearance of goods within a specific timeframe. Therefore, the Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.