2004 (4) TMI 478 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal denies refund claim for late return of goods. Rule 173L bars refunds after one year.

TORRENT CABLES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, rejected the refund claim under Rule 173L for duty paid on goods returned to the factory after the specified ... Refund of duty on goods returned to factory - Limitation Issues: Refund claim under Rule 173L for duty paid on goods returned to the factory after a specific period.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue revolved around a refund claim made under Rule 173L for duty paid on goods returned to the factory after a specific period. The appeal stemmed from the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the lower authority's decision to reject the refund claim.The facts of the case outlined that the appellants, who manufactured wires and cables, had a consignment cleared on 31-10-1996, returned it to the factory on 2-5-1997, and subsequently cleared it again on 24-6-1998 and 31-7-1998 after repairs. A refund claim was then filed under Rule 173L for duty paid on the above dates, with the claim dated 10-8-1998.The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim on the basis that the goods were returned to the factory under Rule 173L on 13-2-1998, which was beyond one year from the original duty payment date of 31-10-1996. The judgment emphasized that Rule 173L does not allow for refunds if goods are returned to the factory after one year from the date of duty payment, as clearly stated in the rule.The presiding judge highlighted that the goods were returned to the factory in 1998 under Rule 173L, which was beyond the one-year period stipulated in the rule from the initial duty payment date of 31-10-1996. The judgment concluded that based on the explicit provisions of Rule 173L, no other interpretation was feasible, leading to the rejection of the appeal.