Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 27 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(175)ELT487(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the rejection of refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants made a claim for refund of duty of Rs. 52,900/- before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Against the rejection of the claim, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The same was rejected and hence the present appeal to the Tribunal.
2. The facts in brief are that, the appellants received chemicals "Chlorhexidine Gluconate B.P" from the customers on its rejection. The appellants gave the intimation to the jurisdictional authorities about the receipt of the material, the same was verified, as required under the provisions of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules 1944. They also maintained separate account for re-processing the said material and thereafter the same was cleared on payment of duty. After completion of the process, the claim for refund of aforesaid amount was filed. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim solely on the ground that the appellants filed declaration under Rule 173H. The said rule refers to clearance of re-processed goods without payment of duty. Since the appellants have cleared the re-processed goods on payment of duty, they cannot come forward and claim refund under a rule, provisions of which have not been followed by the assessee.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also adopted the same reasoning to reject the claim. In this connection, I note that, separate account of duty paid goods received for re-processing and repairs, i.e. required to be maintained by the manufacturer is common in respect of Rules 97, 97A, 173H, 173L and 173M. The appellants are stating that, it is a mistake in the title of the records, which they maintained in which Rule 173H has been indicated instead of Rule 173L. Besides this typographical error, no other infringement of Rule I73L has been alleged or noticed. All the particulars that are required to be mentioned in the records under Rule 173L are available, though the title refers to Rule 173H.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Ld. DR supports the order of the lower authorities stating that the procedure was not followed.
6. I note that there is compliance of conditions and procedures contained in Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. Except for the caption at the top of the records, which indicates Rule 173H, there is no other infirmity in record keeping, so far as the admissibility of the claim under Rule 173L is concerned.
7. Consequently, I hold that there has been a compliance of provision of Rule 173L and rejection of the claim was without any authority. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)