1992 (11) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim for excise duty paid on Electric Storage Batteries.
2. Applicability of time bar and non-filing of necessary declaration under Central Excise notifications.
3. Compliance with conditions of exemption notification for refund eligibility.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim for excise duty paid on Electric Storage Batteries manufactured and cleared during a specific period. The appellant's claim was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and the lower appellate authority on grounds of limitation and non-filing of necessary declaration under Central Excise notifications. The issue of limitation was found in favor of the appellant, but the refund claim was rejected due to non-compliance with declaration requirements.

The appellant argued that the non-filing of the declaration was not alleged in the show cause notice, and evidence showed that their clearance did not exceed the limit specified in the notification. The respondent suggested remanding the issue to determine if the clearance exceeded the limit and if non-filing of the declaration affected the refund claim eligibility.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, noting that the lower authority found the limitation issue in favor of the appellant but rejected the claim based on non-compliance with declaration requirements. Without expressing an opinion on the merit, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded it to the original authority for further consideration, allowing the appellant to present evidence and arguments in accordance with the law.

In a separate assent, it was highlighted that while the lower authority favored the appellant on the time bar issue, the appellant was denied the benefit of the notification due to non-compliance with declaration and other conditions. The Tribunal observed that the appellant operated under Central Excise control, filing returns as required, and should have been asked for evidence to verify compliance with notification conditions. The failure to do so rendered the lower authority's decision improper, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural aspects of the case, emphasizing the importance of compliance with notification requirements and the need for proper verification of conditions before denying refund claims. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the appellant's eligibility for the refund based on the applicable legal provisions and factual evidence.