9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficates were issued within the framework of L-6 Licence issued to them. 4. The Asstt. Collector held that the respondents failed to procure non-duty paid goods from their suppliers though they have observed other formalities and got C.T. 2 Certificates. He has stated that there is no provision under the rules to refund the duty which was paid at the other end on the goods which are used/consumed under the concession along with Chapter X. Chapter X never envisages to pay refund if the goods used were duty paid. On appeal, the Appellate Authority was of the view that the C.T. 2 issued from the receivers were not accepted at the suppliers end. The respondents had maintained all registers and records properly and the receipts have been duly verified by the officers. In the circumstances, he held that the rejection of the claim was not proper. He remanded the matter to the Asstt. Collector to grant refund claim examining the aspect of time bar alone. 5. Shri J.N. Nigam, SDR urged that the refund could be accorded only to the party who had paid the amount. The duty was actually paid to the department by the suppliers and not by the respondents. He relied on the rulings reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in 1981 E.L.T. 257 (Standard Batteries Limited v. Appraiser, Appraising Deptt. and others). 1981 E.L.T. 478 (Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. Another v. U.O.I.). 1983 E.L.T. 1763 (U.O.I, v. New India Industries Ltd., Baroda). 1980 E.L.T. 735 (Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. and Another v. U.O.I. and Others). 9. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents are entitled to the refund? Notification 151/77-CE reacts as follows :- Electrolytic Copper Wire bars falling under Item No. 26A when used for the manufacture of the articles specified in the Schedule annexed hereto are exempt from the whole of the duty : Provided that the manufacturer of the articles specified in the Schedule annexed hereto shall follow the procedure set out in Chapter-X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Provided. 10. The respondents admittedly manufacture electric motors of 5 K.W. and above and transformers of rating of 150 K.V.A. and above. They have purchased electrolytic copper wire bars from the suppliers of Patna, Bombay and Bangalore. Sh. Kohli drew our attention to the communication of the Inspector, Central Excise, Allahabad dated 28-4-1978 who certifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be marked on the packages. We do not know whether the respondents have complied with this requirement. Rule 194 ontemplates that the goods shall be stored in a storeroom and that the applicants should maintain a register in the proper form showing the quantity of goods received and the quantity used in the industrial purposes. Though, it was urged that the respondents had maintained such a register, yet the same had not been produced before the concerned authority. Further Rule 194(3) prescribed that within 7 days after the close of each month a monthly return should be submitted showing the nature and quantity of other goods and the commodities manufactured with such other particulars. Admittedly, no such return was filed to enable the officer to verify the correctness of the manufacture. The Asstt. Collector was, therefore, right when he stated that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Chapter-X. The Appellate Authority has stated that the respondents have maintained all the registers and records properly and the receipts have been verified by the officer on duty. But the Appellate Collector has not stated anything about the failure to furnish the returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es . In paragraph 7, it is stated that It is true that the excise duty is an indirect tax but as between the petitioner and those two companies, the excise duty formed part of the price of those goods and those two companies were liable to pay duty on those goods to excise authorities at the point of removal of those goods from their respective factories. They also paid actual duty liable on those goods to the Excise authorities . In the case of Silchar Electric Company (cited supra), the High Court has observed in Para 7, No doubt the excise duty which has been levied on the manufacturer of the product, may be eventually passed on the ultimate consumer or buyer but so far as statute is concerned, the liability for paying the tax is on the manufacturer or producer, as the case may be, and the right to collect the same by the Union of India is only against such manufacturer or producer. In my pointion, therefore, (the plaintiff, who was not a manufacturer or a producer and who was, therefore, not required to pay any excise duty to Union of India directly is in no position to claim refund from the Union of India because the plaintiff had made no payment to the Union of India) . 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
