9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the Order-in-Appeal bearing HN-726/B-II-330-/86 dated 21-11-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay confirming the Order-in-Original No. V-68(18)RC-61/84/155 dated 1-1-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Kalyan, rejecting the appellants claim for grant of refund of Rs. 4708.13. 2. The appellants, who are manufacturers of dye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing the appellants, came to the conclusion that the provisions of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules stood attracted in the present case and as there was no provision under the said Rules for grant of refund of duty, the claim was not tenable and hence rejected the same. In the appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the view taken by the adjudicating authority was upheld and the appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the same Tariff Item and the said goods have been duly cleared under regular gate pass after payment of requisite duty. The appellants have however not produced any evidence to the subsequent clearance under Gate Pass and payment of requisite duty. The plea to that effect has already been raised before both the authorities. However, the fact remains that out of the duty paid goods initially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one provision, namely Rule 173H does not appear to be correct and the authorities below ought to have examined the refund claim from all perspective. When that is not done, the orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. The orders of the authorities below are therefore set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Collector for examination of the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
