Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Pudamjee Pulp And Paper Mills Ltd. on 29 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(91)ELT595(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This Reference application has been moved by the Revenue in respect of this Bench Order No. 1794-95/95-WRB, dated 13-10-1995. In the said order passed by this Bench, it was held that refund sanctioned to the appellants under Rule 173L was in order and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals). There is no dispute before me that all the conditions prescribed in Rule 173L proviso have been complied with. However, it is pleaded that in this case, the defective security paper was not put to processing, when the replacement materials were cleared to the security press. Hence, it is pleaded by the learned Departmental Representative, that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L cannot be said to have been complied with. She pleads that under Rule 173L, refund is limited to the duty paid on re-processed goods and when replacement has been done before re-processing, refund cannot be granted. In any case, refund is liable to be rejected on this ground and if they file another refund claim, after reprocessing, is completed that can be considered by the department. She, however, does not dispute that even the replacement was cleared on payment of duty and there is no difference in quantum of duty paid on replacement goods vis-a-vis the duty paid on the re-processed goods subsequently cleared on payment of duty. In the circumstances, the question raised is purely academic, having no revenue implication. Even under Rule 173L, refund is contemplated in respect of the manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory, which are returned to the same or any other factory for being re-made, refined, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar process [vide Sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L] From the above it is clear refund is to be paid on goods, which are returned to the factory. Other safeguards are meant to ensure that reprocessed goods are cleared again on payment of duty. In this case there is no dispute that reprocessed goods have also been cleared on payment of duty and there is no difference in quantum of duty, which would call for adjustment. In the circumstances, reference application is misplaced and is therefore, rejected.