9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 620 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Claim for refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Non-compliance with time prescribed for receipt of returned goods - Request for condonation of delay - Applicability of case laws. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the appeal against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 4,63,783 under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants had received back goods manufactured and cleared in July 1997 in April 1999, following which they filed a D-3 intimation under Rule 173L. However, the refund claim was rejected due to non-compliance with the time frame specified in Rule 173L for the receipt of returned goods back in the factory. Both lower authorities held that the claim was inadmissible due to this non-compliance. The appellants argued before the Tribunal that they had requested condonation of the delay in receiving the goods in response to the Show Cause Notice. They also relied on the decisions in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II and Mamta Machinery Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI to support their case. The Tribunal found that the goods were received beyond one year of clearance but within a further period of one year. However, the appellants had not sought an extension of time for receiving the goods under Rule 173L. The Tribunal noted that there was no explicit request for an extension of time in the proceedings, and the case laws cited did not align with the appellants' situation. The Tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the appellants, emphasizing that those cases involved specific requests for condonation of delay, which were absent in the present case. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order, and the appeal was rejected. In summary, the judgment focused on the non-compliance with the time frame prescribed in Rule 173L for the receipt of returned goods, the absence of a formal request for an extension of time, and the inapplicability of cited case laws due to the lack of specific requests for condonation of delay in the present case. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on these grounds.
|
