Tribunal grants duty refund for returned goods meeting Rule 173L requirements.

SIDDHO MAL PAPER CONVERSION CO. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD

SIDDHO MAL PAPER CONVERSION CO. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:
Sanction of refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules for goods received back by the appellant.

Analysis:

1. Appeal No. E/1004/03-NB:
The appellant had cleared Lux 100 Gms. wrapper to a customer, who returned a portion of the goods due to quality issues. The appellant filed a refund claim under Rule 173L, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The main contention was the discrepancy in the quantity of goods returned. However, upon review, it was found that the goods were verified by the Range Inspector, and the appellant had followed the provisions of Rule 173L. The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the refund of duty as the returned goods were processed and cleared on payment of duty, meeting the requirements of the rule.

2. Appeal No. E/1005/03-NB:
In this case, the appellant had cleared soap wrappers to a customer who returned a different type of wrapper due to quality issues. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, stating that the goods returned were not the same as those cleared initially. The Tribunal agreed with this decision, emphasizing that for Rule 173L to apply, the goods returned must be the same class and fall under the same Tariff Heading as the originally cleared goods. Since there was a change in the description of the returned goods, the appellant was not eligible for a refund under Rule 173L.

3. Appeal No. E/1006/03-NB:
The appellant cleared soap wrappers to a customer who returned a portion of the goods for reprocessing. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim based on a discrepancy in the quantity of goods returned. However, upon examination of the records and submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellant had followed the provisions of Rule 173L, and the goods returned were verified by the Range Inspector. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the refund claim cannot be rejected solely based on a discrepancy in the quantity mentioned in the invoice.

4. Appeal No. E/1007/03-NB:
In this case, the appellant cleared goods to a customer who returned a portion for reprocessing. The refund claim was rejected on the grounds that the returned goods were considered different from the originally cleared goods. The Tribunal disagreed with this decision, highlighting that Rule 173L allows for a refund of duty for goods of the same class, even if not identical. Citing relevant circulars and precedents, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the refund of duty under Rule 173L.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed appeals E/1004, E/1006, and E/1007/03-NB, while rejecting appeal E/1005/03-NB based on the specific circumstances and compliance with Rule 173L in each case.