COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Vs. GUPTA SOAPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has preferred this appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order dated 20 -9 -1993.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that M/s. Gupta Soaps manufacture detergent powder. They manufactured detergent for M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. out of raw materials supplied by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. The detergents so manufactured was exported by M/s. V.A.M. International under bond. The respondents submitted two claims for the quarter January, 1991 to March, 1991 and April to June, 1991 on 22 -8 -1991 for refund of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs which were used in the manufacture of detergent which were exported under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector rejected both the refund claims, under order dated 23 -3 -1993, holding that the transaction between the Respondents and Godraj Soaps Ltd. was not on principal to principal basis as the detergent was manufactured out of the raw materials supplied by Godrej Soaps Ltd. and under the supervision of their inspector and amount of refund was to be paid by the Respondents to Godrej Soaps Ltd.; that M/s. Gupta Soaps were not the real manufacturer but just a hired labour of the raw material supplier; that as per Notification No. 85/87 dated 1 -3 -1987, only the exporter can claim the refund under Rule 57F (3) and the exporter was other than the respondents.

(3.) SHRI Tilak, learned DR submitted that the issue involved in appeal is outside the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in view of the provisions of proviso C to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act which provides that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in respect of goods exported outside India without payment of duty; that it is clear from the copies of the shipping bills that they were availing of DEEC scheme as well as Modvat credit on the indigeneous raw materials which tantamounts to double benefit out of single export consignment which is not allowable; that the respondents had only submitted the xerox copies of the AR4s and shipping bills and in absence of which authenticity of the documents could not be verified by the Department. He, further, submitted that Notification No. 85/87 issued under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, provides that the refund claim should not be submitted more than once in any quarter of a calender year; that as two refund claims had been filed during a single month, conditions of the notifications have not been complied with. He also mentioned that the benefit of Rule 57F(3) is not available to the Respondents as goods were sold by them for house consumption and reliance was placed on the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Gavs Laboratories (P) Ltd. 1994 (71) E.L.T. 717 (Tribunal). He, finally, submitted that the Collector (Appeals) had allowed the refund claims without going into the merits of the claim.