SURANA STEELS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved with the OIA No. 96/2003 -CE dated 25.08.2003 upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund claim. The assessees had received duty paid goods under Rule 173L, after a lapse of more than one year. They preferred a refund claim under this Rule. It was rejected by the DC on the ground that they had not obtained permission to do so as required by the Sub -rule 1(i) of the Rule 173L. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Imperial Auto Industries v. CCE, New Delhi - 2001 (136) ELT 328 which has held in para 4 as follows: Page 0242 Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules lays down the procedure to be followed by an assessee for claiming refund of the duty paid twice on the goods cleared. The Rule clearly mandates that no refund shall be permissible unless the procedure mentioned therein, had been complied with and requisite details had been rendered to the satisfaction of Collector within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. The assessee is also required under this rule to store the goods separately pending these being refined, reconditioned, etc. unless permitted by the Commissioner by an order in writing.

(2.) FOLLOWING the above ratio, the Commissioner has confirmed the rejection of refund claim as no permission had been obtained. The assessee had not appeared to argue the matter despite several notices issued. Hence, the matter had been heard on merits. There is no dispute in the Grounds of appeal that they had not applied for permission. They also do not dispute the fact that the goods were received in the factory after a period of one year from the date of clearance. In view of the cited judgment, the appellants do not have a case on merits. The appeal is rejected.