1994 (2) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds Collector's order, rejects Revenue appeal on Rule 173L compliance. Department directed to provide relief.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-III Versus COLOUR CHEM LTD.

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-III Versus COLOUR CHEM LTD. - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 316 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules.2. Adequacy of Form V account entries.3. Explanation and documentation of the blending process.4. Correlation between rejected goods and reprocessed goods.5. Validity of the refund claims based on reprocessed goods.Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules:The core issue revolved around whether the respondents complied substantively with the requirements of Rule 173L, which allows for a refund of duty paid on rejected goods returned to the factory for reprocessing. The rule mandates that the returned goods should be remade, refined, reconditioned, or subjected to any similar process, and proper accounts must be maintained.The Tribunal found that the respondents met the substantive conditions of Rule 173L. The goods were returned to the factory, re-entry was duly established, and the blending process was considered a valid reprocessing method under Rule 173L. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that blending is a process similar to those specified in Rule 173L, and thus, no objection could be raised against it.2. Adequacy of Form V Account Entries:The Revenue argued that the Form V account was incomplete, lacking entries related to the nature of reprocessing, other ingredients added, and the resultant product obtained. This was seen as a failure to establish a proper correlation between the reprocessed goods and the rejected goods.The Tribunal noted that the official text of Form V does not have a specific column for detailing the reprocessing. The respondents had indicated 'blending' in a general manner, which was deemed acceptable. The Tribunal found that the respondents had substantially complied with the statutory requirements by providing detailed worksheets and explanations during the appeal process.3. Explanation and Documentation of the Blending Process:The Revenue contended that the respondents could not explain what was obtained by blending and the nature of the blending process. Additionally, there was a discrepancy in the quantity cleared after reprocessing compared to the quantity of rejected goods received.The Tribunal observed that the respondents had provided detailed worksheets, which included the nature of the reprocessing and the ingredients used, after the personal hearing. These details were overlooked by the Asstt. Collector but were considered by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal agreed that these details were sufficient to establish that the rejected goods were indeed reprocessed through blending.4. Correlation Between Rejected Goods and Reprocessed Goods:The Revenue highlighted discrepancies in the description and quantity of the rejected goods vis-a-vis the reprocessed goods cleared, arguing that this affected the eligibility for refunds.The Tribunal found that there was no allegation that the reprocessed goods fell under a different class from the rejected goods. The discrepancies in description and quantity did not affect the eligibility for a refund as long as the reprocessed goods belonged to the same class as the rejected goods. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that the blending process resulted in goods of the same class, thus meeting the requirements of Rule 173L.5. Validity of the Refund Claims Based on Reprocessed Goods:The Asstt. Collector had rejected the refund claims on the grounds that the respondents did not maintain proper accounts and could not explain the blending process. The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeals, finding that the respondents had provided sufficient details and that the blending process was valid under Rule 173L.The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Collector (Appeals), stating that the respondents had provided detailed and reasoned explanations and worksheets. The Tribunal found no evidence from the Revenue to contradict the details provided by the respondents. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal from the Revenue and directed the Department to extend the consequential relief arising from the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals).Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal from the Revenue. The respondents were found to have complied substantively with Rule 173L, and the discrepancies in the Form V account entries were not deemed fatal to their refund claims. The Tribunal directed the Department to extend the consequential relief as per the Collector (Appeals)'s order.