Refund claim upheld under Rule 173L, emphasizing procedural compliance and duty payment verification.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-II Versus KIRLOSKAR COPELAND LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-II Versus KIRLOSKAR COPELAND LTD. - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 124 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:
Refund claim under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 rejected by adjudicating authority based on failure to follow procedure. Appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) leading to Department's appeal challenging the decision.

Analysis:
The issue at hand pertains to a refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the respondent assessee cleared Power Steering Cylinders to customers, which were later returned as they were not required. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims citing non-compliance with Rule 173L procedures. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, noting that the D-3 intimation was filed on time, and proper records were maintained, including the payment of duty for the second clearance. The Commissioner relied on precedent emphasizing the importance of D-3 intimation and duty payment during the final stage of clearance, which were not in dispute in this case, leading to the appeal being allowed.

In the subsequent appeal by the Department, the main contention was that the returned goods did not undergo processing as required by Rule 173L. Citing previous cases, it was argued that separate processing of returned goods was not mandatory. The Department's argument was refuted based on precedents indicating that if the original clearance and subsequent clearance of goods on payment of duty were established, the refund claim under Rule 173L could not be denied. In this case, the respondent had paid duty during the initial clearance and again upon the return of goods, leading to their clearance once more with duty payment. The judgment concluded that charging the same goods twice with duty was impermissible, thereby allowing the refund of one duty payment. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the refund claim under Rule 173L, emphasizing the importance of following prescribed procedures and establishing the payment of duty at crucial stages of clearance. The legal principles established through precedents were instrumental in determining the validity of the refund claim and the impermissibility of charging duty twice on the same goods.