2004 (1) TMI 452 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty under Rule 173L for goods cleared twice.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a dispute regarding the refund of duty claimed by the appellants. The counsel for the appellants argued that duty was paid twice on the goods - first when initially cleared and second when received back from the buyer after repair and reconditioning. The appellants sought refund under Rule 173L. On the other hand, the learned SDR supported the impugned order denying the refund.

Upon review of the records, it was found that the goods were dispatched to the buyer but not accepted within the stipulated period. The appellants then cleared the same goods again, claiming refund of the duty paid. However, the authorities rejected the refund claim as the appellants failed to establish a connection between the goods initially cleared and those cleared after return. Rule 173L allows for duty refund only if goods are returned for remade, refined, reconditioning, or similar processes by the buyer. In this case, the goods were not returned for such purposes but due to delayed delivery. Discrepancies in the description and quantity of goods further weakened the appellants' case.

The judgment cited the decision in CCE v. J.K. Corporation Ltd., emphasizing that the expression "same class of goods" in Rule 173L(iii) should not be narrowly interpreted as "the same variety of goods." However, the facts of this case did not align with the broader interpretation, as highlighted by the mismatch in goods description and quantity between the invoices.

Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund was upheld, and the appeal of the appellants was dismissed.