2000 (1) TMI 469 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner overturns decision rejecting refund claim, Tribunal emphasizes link between returned goods and subsequent clearances

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BBSR-I Versus ISPAT ALLOYS LIMITED

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BBSR-I Versus ISPAT ALLOYS LIMITED - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1010 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Refund rejection by Assistant Commissioner2. Appeal allowed by Commissioner of Central Excise3. Dispute over the connection between returned goods and re-processed goodsRefund Rejection by Assistant Commissioner:The case involved the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 83,151 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The rejection was based on the grounds that the respondents failed to prove that the goods subsequently cleared were the same as those returned. The Assistant Commissioner noted a shortage of 100 kg in the returned goods and observed a reduction in chromium percentage due to blending during reprocessing. Additionally, the duty incidence was initially passed on to M/s. SAIL, who had claimed credit on the goods, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.Appeal Allowed by Commissioner of Central Excise:Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed the Assistant Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner found sufficient evidence on record establishing a connection between the returned goods and the clearances of re-processed goods. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the respondents, leading to the Revenue's dissatisfaction with this decision.Dispute Over Connection Between Returned Goods and Re-Processed Goods:During the hearing, it was noted that the Revenue did not contest the filing of D-3 intimation by the respondents or its verification by the Central Excise officers. The maintenance of records by the respondents was also acknowledged. The Revenue's doubt regarding the identity of the returned and originally cleared goods was based on a perceived 100 kg shortage. However, the respondents clarified that the shortage occurred due to tests conducted by M/s. SAIL. The Tribunal found the Revenue's doubt unfounded, considering the evidence provided by the respondents, including correspondence with M/s. SAIL regarding the material rejection. The issue of unjust enrichment was raised, with the respondents arguing that as M/s. SAIL did not pay for the rejected goods, no sale was completed, eliminating the unjust enrichment concern. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the lack of payment by M/s. SAIL for the rejected material.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of establishing a clear connection between returned goods and subsequent clearances, addressing doubts raised by the Revenue, and considering the unjust enrichment principle in refund cases involving rejected goods.