Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Commissioner Of Ce & St (Ltu) on 1 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Appeal No. E/276/97 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P/673/96 dated 05.11.1996 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) Pune) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) ================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Appellant Vs. Commissioner of CE & ST (LTU) Mumbai Respondent Appearance:
Shri U.K. Godbole, GM Indirect Tax for appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 01.09.2016 Date of Decision: 01.09.2016 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. P/673/96 dated 05.11.1996.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether appellant is entitled for refund of the duty paid on the goods i.e. scooter cleared by them for export.
4. Appellant had cleared the scooters for home consumption on payment of duty to the dealers; few scooters were returned back for reconditioning / repairing; during the period in question i.e. July 1995 to January 1996 there was a requirement of filing D.3. intimation of the returned goods which appellant did so and after reconditioning, exported the same under bond without payment of duty by document AR-4 dated 06.10.1995. On export, appellant filed an application on 23.01.1996 for refund of duty paid on such goods. Both the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that the same was filed after six months from the date of payment of duty and hit by limitation.
5. Learned representative for appellant would submit that the lower authorities have erred in coming to a conclusion for rejecting the refund claim. It is his submission that when the goods are exported no duty has to be levied hence duty paid by them initially should be refunded to them. For which preposition he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. 1995 (78) ELT 595 (Tri.). It is his further submission that the appellant had followed the law correctly and hence the refund claim should be allowed.
6. Learned D.R. reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
7. On perusal of the records, we find that the refund claim filed by the appellant is undisputedly beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty which was initially cleared for home consumption to their dealers. The provisions of Rule 173H which are followed by the appellant for receiving the duty paid goods back and removing them after reconditioning or repairing would not amount to discharge of duty liability when the goods are cleared after reconditioning. Since duty liability on the goods exported was discharged and the refund claim was filed beyond six months, provision of Section 11B gets attracted and refund claim has to be held as hit by limitation. We find that the first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that payment of duty would mean that the appellant should have followed the provisions of Rule 173L of erstwhile Central Excise Rules in order to claim the refund of duty paid as in that case only the goods can be considered as removed on payment of duty. We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellant.
8. In view of the foregoing, we upheld the impugned order as correct and legal and reject the appeal.
(Operative part of order pronounced in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk 1 4 Appeal No. E/276/97