TALBROS AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals of the assessee are against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in four different appeals filed by the party against four different orders of the original authority. The impugned order has upheld the orders of the original authority rejecting four refund claims of the assessee under Rule 173 -L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types of Gaskets falling under Chapters 40,45,48,68 and 84 of the CETA Schedule. They are also availing Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. During the relevant periods, the appellants had cleared Gaskets on payment of duty to their customers, but the latter did not accept the goods as they had stopped production of the final products for which the gaskets were required. As a matter of fact, the goods sent by the appellants had never entered the customers' premises and were returned to the appellants from the transporters' godowns situate in the respective buyers' town. The returned gaskets were removed on payment of duty for preparation of Gasket Sets within the appellants' factory. Subsequently, the appellants filed claims with the Department for refund of the duty originally paid on the gaskets. There were four such claims for refund of the amounts of Rs. 1,04,056 (for the period December 1999 to March 2000); Rs. 52,403 (August to October, 2002); Rs. 40,772 (October 2000 to June 2001) and Rs. 32,527 (January to April 2000). The Department proposed to reject these claims on the following grounds namely:

(3.) Heard both the sides. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that they had complied with the procedure under Rule 173 -L inasmuch as the statutory intimation of receipt of the returned goods had duly been given to the Department and the goods had been reprocessed and removed within 6 months of receipt for preparation of gasket sets. Such removal of the goods within the appellants' factory was made on payment of duty. The relevant invoices evidenced the payment of duty. Double payment of duty on the same goods was a fact not rebutted by any of the lower authorities. In the circumstances, the duty originally paid on the goods was liable to be refunded in terms of Rule 173 -L. Counsel relied on certain decisions of the Tribunal in support of this argument. He also sought to distinguish the decisions relied on by the lower appellate authority. The DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).