2008 (4) TMI 649 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim denied for delay in returning goods under Rule 173L; compliance with procedural requirements crucial.

The appellate tribunal upheld the denial of a refund claim under Rule 173L due to a delay in returning goods after one year. The appellants failed to seek ... Refund claim - Returned goods Issues:Refund claim rejection under Rule 173L due to delay in returning goods after one year.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the rejection of a refund claim under Rule 173L due to the delay in returning goods after one year. The appellants sought to appeal the decision of the Commissioner, who denied the refund claim amounting to Rs. 64,973. The Commissioner held that the power to condone the delay in returning goods after one year lies with the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner of Appeals emphasized that there was no provision empowering them to condone such delay, and the appellants should have approached the jurisdictional Commissioner for condonation of delay, which they failed to do. Consequently, the denial of the refund claim was deemed sustainable as per the order of the adjudicating authority.The appellate tribunal, after reviewing the Commissioner's order, found no fault in the decision. It was acknowledged that the appellants did not seek condonation of the delay from the Commissioner, rendering the rejection of the refund claim under Rule 173L justified. The tribunal concurred with the appellate authority's stance, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, such as seeking condonation of delays as prescribed by law, to validate refund claims under relevant provisions. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of compliance with statutory procedures and the implications of failing to fulfill such obligations in the context of excise law.