Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Ferrous Engineering vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(100)ELT494(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufactured I.C. engines purchasing for such manufacture dutiable component parts. Although nozzles and nozzle holders when used for manufacture of such engines were exempted from payment of duty in terms of an exemption notification, the appellants received these components on payment of duty. On realisation of this situation, they preferred a refund claim on 22-4-1988 of such receipts by them during the period from 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1988. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim in the belief that the appellants were not eligible to claim refund since they were not the manufacturers but the buyers. The Collector (Appeals) having upheld this logic, the present appeal is before us.
2. We have heard Shri P.V. Sheth, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri S. Numthuk, ld. D.R. for the Revenue.
3. Shri Sheth claimed that the provisions of Section 11B, as amended w.e.f. 27-11-1980, were retrospective in nature and covered all the refund claims which were pending on the date of its amendment. To a specific query, whether the word "pending" be limited to a claim pending before the original authority, Shri Sheth referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. ITC Ltd. reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in which the Supreme Court had followed their earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. Jain Spinners Limited and Anr. reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). We have seen these two judgments and find that the claim of the ld. Advocate that the word "pending" would apply to all the matters not only pending before the original authority but also before the appellate authority to be correct. Since the amended legislation permits refund to be claimed by a buyer of duty paid goods also, the stand taken by both the authorities below is not justifiable. On this ground, we set aside both the orders and remand the proceedings back to the Assistant Collector, who would proceed to decide the refund claim in accordance with the provisions of the amended Section 11B. Ordered accordingly.