By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 15, 2016: THIS is an appeal filed by the assessee in the year 1997 against an o-in-a of November 1996.

The issue is whether appellant is entitled for refund of the duty paid on the goods i.e. scooters cleared by them for export.

The matter was decided recently.

The Appellant had cleared scooters for home consumption on payment of duty to the dealers; few scooters were returned back for reconditioning/repairing.D-3 intimation in respect of the returned goods was filed and after reconditioning, the scooters were exported under bond without payment of duty. Against the AR-4 dated 06.10.1995 filed for export, the appellant filed a refund application on 23.01.1996 for refund of duty initially paid on such goods.

Both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim on the ground that the same was filed after six months from the date of payment of duty and is, therefore, hit by limitation. Incidentally, the Commissioner (A) had opined that the appellant ought to have followed rule 173L of CER, 1944 in order to claim the refund of duty paid rather than Rule 173H of CER.

Before the Tribunal, the appellant submitted that when the goods are exported no duty has to be levied hence duty paid by them initially should be refunded to them.

The AR justified the rejection of refund claim.

The Bench observed -

++ Refund claim filed by the appellant is undisputedly beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty which was initially cleared for home consumption to their dealers. The provisions of Rule 173H which are followed by the appellant for receiving the duty paid goods back and removing them after reconditioning or repairing would not amount to discharge of duty liability when the goods are cleared after reconditioning.

++ Since duty liability on the goods exported was discharged and the refund claim was filed beyond six months, provision of Section 11B gets attracted and refund claim has to be held as hit by limitation.

Holding that the findings of the lower appellate authority is correct, the impugned order was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

(See 2016-TIOL-2966-CESTAT-MUM)