Steriware Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Steriware Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 06, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/7786

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/7786
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Sep 06, 1994
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Steriware Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1994)(74)ELT348TriDel

Excerpt

.....under which he has rejected two refund claims of rs. 903.42 and rs. 4309.20 under rule 173l and rejected the alternative plea of relief under rule 151a.2. the appellants cleared disposable plastic body of syringes which were received back in the factory and therefore claimed refund under rule 173l or relief under rule 51 a. it was held by both adjudicating authorities and collector (appeals) that goods in one case were returned by the transporter in absence of st-31 forms and in the other case orders were not confirmed and therefore they were not returned for the purposes for which refund is allowed under rule 173l. since no permission has been taken under rule 51a, no relief can be granted under this rule.3. ld. consultant for the appellant submitted that they had filed d-3 intimation and the goods were entered in form v for derusting and reconditioning etc. and duty was again demanded on duty paid goods at the time of clearance. rule 51a bars goods to prevent clearance of goods without any duty in the guise of duty paid goods. he cited the case of bharat earth movers ltd., bangalore v. cce, bangalore 1983 (12) e.l.t. 867 (tri.) in support of his contention that mere re-entry of goods does not attract the duty.4. ld. dr submitted that since goods were not returned for the purposes of rule 173l, such refund cannot be allowed.5. i have given careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides. it is admitted position that goods were returned to the factory.goods admittedly were not subjected to processes specified under rule 173l nor such other processes as would amount to manufacture. since no manufacture in relation to duty paid goods returned to factory took place, no duty can again be charged on the same goods. mere procedural irregularity in not seeking permission under rule 51a can not have the effect of subjecting the same goods to pay the duty second time. in case of bharat earth movers ltd. (supra) the tribunal held that the excisability of any.....

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal against order-in-appeal No. 97-CE/DLH/91, dated 31-1-1991 upholding the order dated 28-6-1990 of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Faridabad under which he has rejected two refund claims of Rs. 903.42 and Rs. 4309.20 under Rule 173L and rejected the alternative plea of relief under Rule 151A.2. The appellants cleared disposable plastic body of syringes which were received back in the factory and therefore claimed refund under Rule 173L or relief under Rule 51 A. It was held by both adjudicating authorities and Collector (Appeals) that goods in one case were returned by the transporter in absence of ST-31 Forms and in the other case orders were not confirmed and therefore they were not returned for the purposes for which refund is allowed under Rule 173L. Since no permission has been taken under Rule 51A, no relief can be granted under this Rule.

3. Ld. Consultant for the appellant submitted that they had filed D-3 intimation and the goods were entered in Form V for derusting and reconditioning etc. and duty was again demanded on duty paid goods at the time of clearance. Rule 51A bars goods to prevent clearance of goods without any duty in the guise of duty paid goods. He cited the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., Bangalore v. CCE, Bangalore 1983 (12) E.L.T. 867 (Tri.) in support of his contention that mere re-entry of goods does not attract the duty.

4. Ld. DR submitted that since goods were not returned for the purposes of Rule 173L, such refund cannot be allowed.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides. It is admitted position that goods were returned to the factory.

Goods admittedly were not subjected to processes specified under Rule 173L nor such other processes as would amount to manufacture. Since no manufacture in relation to duty paid goods returned to factory took place, no duty can again be charged on the same goods. Mere procedural irregularity in not seeking permission under Rule 51A can not have the effect of subjecting the same goods to pay the duty second time. In case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal held that the excisability of any manufactured goods arises when they are removed from the factory of manufacture in terms of Central Excise Act and the Rules thereunder. Any subsequent manipulation of the goods such as, export, return to the factory etc. does not bring into being a new product which becomes liable to excise duty a second time. Since the goods adimittedly were duty paid no new goods were manufactured out of these goods which would attract duty payment on such goods second time, demand was irregular. I accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Steriware Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise Same Subject Excise