TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant's refund claim dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 173L. Failure to seek procedural relaxation in time.</h1> <h3>HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 3 (Raj.) Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Rule 173L requirements for refund.2. Mandatory nature of conditions under Rules 173L(2) and 173L(3).3. Exercise of the Commissioner's power to relax procedural requirements under Rule 173L(4).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Rule 173L Requirements for Refund:The appellant initially cleared concentrates on payment of duty, which were later returned to the factory due to not meeting technical requirements. The appellant took Modvat credit but later reversed it upon the department's instruction and subsequently filed a refund claim under Rule 173L. The Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals-II), and CESTAT all rejected the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals-II) noted that while the appellant met some substantive requirements, such as informing the department and filing Modvat declarations, they failed to comply with other mandatory conditions, like maintaining detailed accounts and completing processes within six months. The CESTAT upheld this decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to follow the prescribed procedure and maintain necessary records.2. Mandatory Nature of Conditions under Rules 173L(2) and 173L(3):The court examined whether the conditions prescribed under Rules 173L(2) and 173L(3) are mandatory. Rule 173L(2) requires maintaining a detailed account of returned goods and the processes they undergo. Rule 173L(3) stipulates that no refund shall be paid until these processes are completed and an account is rendered to the Commissioner's satisfaction within six months. The appellant argued that due to the nature of the goods, it was not possible to follow these rules strictly and sought relaxation. However, the court found that the appellant did not comply with these mandatory conditions and did not seek relaxation at the appropriate time, thus justifying the rejection of the refund claim.3. Exercise of the Commissioner's Power to Relax Procedural Requirements under Rule 173L(4):The appellant contended that the Commissioner should have relaxed the procedural requirements under Rule 173L(4) due to the technical impossibility of compliance. Rule 173L(4) allows the Commissioner to relax provisions for admitting a refund claim if reasons are recorded in writing. However, the appellant never formally applied for such relaxation. The court held that it was not the Commissioner's duty to invoke relaxation powers sua sponte without a request from the appellant. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation, emphasizing the necessity of fulfilling procedural obligations to claim concessions or refunds.Conclusion:The court concluded that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 173L and did not seek timely relaxation of these provisions. The concurrent decisions of the lower authorities were upheld, and both substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
