2004 (2) TMI 583 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants had initially claimed a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 52,900 before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, which was subsequently rejected. The basis of the rejection was the filing of a declaration under Rule 173H, which pertains to clearance of re-processed goods without payment of duty. However, the appellants had cleared the re-processed goods after paying duty, leading to the rejection of their refund claim.

The appellants had received chemicals from customers upon rejection, following which they informed the jurisdictional authorities and maintained a separate account for re-processing the material, as required under Rule 173L. Despite a typographical error in the records where Rule 173H was mentioned instead of Rule 173L, all necessary particulars mandated by Rule 173L were present. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the same reasoning as the Assistant Commissioner.

During the proceedings, the Ld. DR supported the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the alleged non-compliance with procedures. However, upon examination, the Tribunal found that there was indeed compliance with the conditions and procedures outlined in Rule 173L. The only discrepancy was the caption mentioning Rule 173H instead of Rule 173L, with no other irregularities affecting the admissibility of the claim under Rule 173L.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had complied with the provisions of Rule 173L, rendering the rejection of the claim baseless. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal directed for appropriate consequential relief to be granted in accordance with the law.