SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had imported 12 consignments of wastepaper and cleared the same under an equal number of Bills of Entry against payment of Special Customs Duty @ 5% without claiming the benefit of Customs Notification No. 12/97 dated 1.3.97 as amended by Notification No. 26/98 -Cus. dated 2.6.98 and further amended by Notification No. 51/98 -Cus. dated 18.7.98, whereunder exemption from payment of Special Duty of Customs leviable under Section 68(1) of the Finance Act, 1996 was available to paper waste imported for the manufacture of paper and paperboard by actual users, subject to the condition that the importer followed the procedure set out in the Customs (IMPORT OF GOODS AT CONCESSIONAL RATE OF DUTY FOR OF EXCISABLE GOODS) Rules, 1996. Subsequently, the appellants filed 12 refund claims. The original authority rejected one of these as time -barred and the rest on merits. The 11 claims were rejected on the ground that the claimants had not fulfilled the conditions set out in the above rules. The party had no grievance against rejection of one of their refund -claims on the ground of time -bar. However, as regards the other refund claims, they preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority found that only 3 of the 12 imports had been effected after 15.9.98, the date on which the appellants had obtained Certificate of Registration in terms of Rule 3 of the above rules and on these basis, the authority held that the refund claims pertaining to those imports alone would be sustainable and that " to subject to compliance with the said rules. In respect of the refund claims pertaining to imports made prior to 15.9.98, the appellate Commissioner held that the appellant would not be eligible for refund for want of registration certificate. On this basis, all refund claims pertaining to the pre -15.9.98 imports were rejected. In respect of the post -15.9.98 imports, the case was remanded to the original authority for the purposed of verification to ascertain compliance with Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules. The present appeal is directed against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we note that the registration certificate dated 15.9.98 issued to the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was valid for consignments imported during the quarter July - September 1998 as indicated by the covering Setter for the certificate, which, inter alia, states thus: This registration certificate is valid only for this consignment i.e. for the quarter ending July - September 1998. The subject imports were made during this quarter. We are of the view that the registration -related condition under the 1996 Rules should have been held to have been fulfilled by the importer in respect of the relevant refund claims. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) took, the view that the importer did not fulfil the conditions laid down under Rules 2, 3 & 4 prior to 15.9.98. It would follow that, where the registration -related condition stood fulfilled for the entire period of imports, it should be held that the above rules stood complied with in respect of all the relevant refund claims. As regards fulfilment of the condition laid down under Rule 7, whereunder the party was under an obligation to give intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over their factory of receipt of the imported goods in his factory as also to maintain a simple account indicating the quantity and value of goods imported, the quantity of imported goods consumed for the intended purpose, and the quantity remaining in stock, Bill of Entry -wise and to produce the said account as and when required by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) rightly remanded the case to the original authority. It appears from the records before us that the appellants are possessed of the requisite accounts and have evidence of having given necessary intimation to the Range Officer. We are of the view that all these records shall be duly verified by the original authority to ascertain whether the appellants complied with Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules in respect of the 11 imports. In the event of such compliance being found, the appellants will be entitled to refund of the Special Customs duty paid on the goods covered by the 11 imports.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , we set aside the impugned order insofar as the lower appellate authority's decision on the refund claims pertaining to pre -15.9.98 imports is concerned, and allow this appeal by remanding the said refund claims covering the pre -15.9.98 imports [except the one rejected by the original authority as time -barred] to the original authority for fresh adjudication in terms of this order after verification of compliance with Rule 7 of the 1996 Rules. The original authority shall dispose of the refund claims within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.