ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a manufacturer of IC Engines in the manufacture of which certain components are purchased from the manufacturers thereof, some without payment of duty following Chapter X procedure and some on payment of duty. In respect of the latter category of the purchases of component parts, appellant, as buyer of such inputs, had filed refund claim before the Asstt. Commissioner. The claim was rejected by that authority on the ground that the claim had been filed not by the manufacturer of such component parts but by the present appellant who is only a purchaser of such components and who manufactures IC Engines there from. The order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) but challenge by the appellant leading to the present appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant made available a copy of Tribunal’s Final Order No. E/16/97-B, dated 16-12-1997 in Appeal No. 4630/89-B in the case of Ferrous Engineering v. C.C.E., Bombay 1998 (100) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal). It was explained by the learned Counsel the said appellant was also engaged in similar manufacture of IC Engines using duty paid components. The claim for refund filled by them was likewise rejected by the Asstt. Collector and the order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the orders of the depatmental authorities and remanded the matter back to the Asstt. Collector with the direction that he should proceed to decide the refund claim in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. It was pleaded that as the present issue is exactly on all forces with the said case disposed of by the Tribunal, a similar decision may be taken in the present case also.
3. In reply, Shri Nunthuk learned Departmental Representative stated that the refund claim pertains to a period prior to the amendment of Section 11B of the Act in September, 1991 and hence it was not open to the appellant who is not the manufacturer of the component parts in question but only buyer thereof from the actual manufacturer to file the refund claim. The purchaser of duty paid excisable goods who had paid the excise duty thereon acquired the right to file a refund claim only with the amendment of the aforesaid provision with effect from September, 1991. The benefit of the said amendment will not apply to the present case as the duty in question have been paid prior to the amendment and the goods had also been purchased likewise. He accordingly opposed the grounds taken in the appeal and pleaded for its dismissal.
4. Giving a rejoinder to the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative, Shri P.V Sheth, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the specific finding of the Tribunal in their order dated 16th December, 1997 in the case of Ferrous Engineering relied upon by him wherein it is clearly held that following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. ITC Ltd. reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 and Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd. reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 that the word “pending” on the date of amendment was not limited only to a claim pending before the original authority but that it would apply to all the matters not only pending before the original authority but also before the higher appellate authorities. He also referred to the definition of the explanation relevant date given in explanation ‘B’ under Section 11B lying down that, in the case of a person other than the manufacturer, the relevant date would be the date of purchase of the goods. This would clearly indicate that it was permissible for such a person also to file a refund claim.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by both the sides. The issue is clearly covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the Final Order No. E/16/97-B, dated 16-12-1997 in the case of Ferrous Engineering 1998 (100) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal). The objection taken in the orders of the authorities below that the appellant had no locus standi in the matter is contrary to the provision of Section 11B as amended and is also covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Case 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247. The objection taken by Shri Nunthuk in the ground that the refund claim filed by the appellant pertains to a period prior to the amendment of Section 11B also runs counter to the provisions of that Section as amended as clarified by the Supreme Court in the two judgments namely Union of India v. ITC and Union of India v. ]ain Spinners Ltd. The said approach has been taken by the Tribunal in the earlier order in the case of Ferrous Engineering referred to above. We see no reason to take a different stand while disposing the present appeal. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand to the Asstt. Collector to decide the refund claim afresh in accordance with the provision of amended Section 11B.