9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be hereinafter referred to as the Act ). During the period from June 1974 to December 1974 the appellants received back in their factory certain quantities of their products for the purposes of re-processing. After re-processing they cleard the goods on payment of Central Excise duty. Subsequently, the appellants claimed refund of duty originally paid in respect of the goods which were brought to their factory for re-processing and which were subsequently cleard on payment of duty. In all they made 12 claims. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by 12 separate orders disallowed portion of their claims holding that the amount of duty involved on the processing loss occurred while reprocessing of duty paid goods returned to the factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n before the Government of India which statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal and came to be numbered as Appeal No. 57/80. As there were 12 appeals before the Collector (Appeals) the Tribunal called upon the appellants either to restrict their appeal to any of their claim in the 12 appeals preferred before the Collector (Appeals) or to file 11 supplementary appeals. The appellants, however, filed 12 supplementary appeals and they came to be numbered as Appeal Nos. 151/84 to 162/84. As the revision application which is numbered as 57/80 is also considered the last of the appeal, nwnely, Appeal No. 162/84 shall have to be treated as redundant. 4. Shri A.J. Sheth, General Manager of the appellants vehement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al are (1) whether the appellants are entitled for refund of full amount of Central Excise duty paid at the time of first clearance of goods for home consumption and (2) whether the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector were right and justified in disallowing a part of their refund claim. Rule 173L of the Rules authorises the Collector to grant refund of the duty paid or manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory, which are returned to the same or any other factory, for being remade, refined, reconditioned or supply to any other similar process in the factory. The conditions to be fulfilled by the manufacturer for claiming refund of duty are set out in the two proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rule 173L. Since it is not disputed that the appellants had complied with the provisions of Rule 173L (1) and (2), it is not necessary to set out sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 173L. Sub-rule (3) reads as under : No refund under sub-rule (1) shall be paid until the processes mentioned therein have been completed and an account under sub-rule (2) having been rendered to the satisfaction of the Collector within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. No refund shall be admissible in respect of the duty paid :- (i) in respect of opened packages containing goods with concesional rates of duty or partial exemption for the small or cottage section, as set forth in the First Schedule to the Act, or by a notification issued und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any manner other than for production of goods of the same class. In the absence of such a finding there is no scope to contend that the refund claim of the appellants fell within the ambit of sub-clause (iii) of sub-rule (3). The maintenance of account is provided under sub-rule (2) of rule 173L. The account required to be maintained under that sub-rule is of the returned goods and the processes to which they are subjected after their return to the factory. There is no complaint that the appellants did not render the accounts of the returned goods to the satisfaction of the Collector within the specified period. On the other hand the Collector (Appeals) in his order had stated that the appellants had complied with sub-rules (1) and (2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a complete code in the matter of refund of duty on goods returned to the factory. When refund is admissible and when it is not admissible are laid down in the said rule. The rule is explicit and unambiguous. It says that the Collector may grant refund if the manufacturer claiming refund satisfies the Collector the conditions laid down in that rule. 13. In what circumstances the refund is inadmissible is set out in clauses (i) to (iv) (at the relevant time) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L. Thus, both positive and negative aspects had been provided in the rules. The rules in my opinion is more eloquent and it would be incorrect to state that rule is silent. 14. After careful consideration of all the aspects, I allow these appeals and set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
