9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vth Division had sanctioned a refund of Rs. 48,195/- to the appellant under Rule I73L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and allowed the appellant to take credit of the same in RG23A Pt. II in respect of bucket returned to the appellant s factory. Subsequently, holding that the returned bucket was neither subjected to remaking nor to any other similar process specified under Rule I73L of Central Excise Rules, 1944, a show cause notice dt. 12-2-1991 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore IV Division as to why the amount of Rs. 48,195 which was erroneously refunded should not be demanded/recovered from them under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being eligible for refund under Rule 173L. After observing the required formalities the Asstt. Collector has held that the activities to which bucket was subjected did not amount to a manufacturing process and therefore he has held that the refund granted earlier was erroneous. He has accordingly demanded the same in the impugned order. I find that in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order the Asstt. Collector has interpreted the word remade as amounting to remanufacture or manufacturing process, but that there is no authority for such an interpretation. Rule 173L has to be read in conjunction with Rule 173H. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the goods which are returned to the factory m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri.) wherein the Tribunal had held that refund of duty paid on goods which have been removed on payment of duty and returned to the factory has to be paid as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L the only restriction placed being under proviso (iv) to the sub-rule. Similarly, the appellant is also correct in placing reliance on yet another decision of the CEGAT in the case of Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex., reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 484 (Tri.) where the Special Bench have held that an article should not suffer double duty and if any item has suffered double duty the appellant is entitled to get refund. The same principle has been laid down in the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia v. Collector of C. Ex. and Oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
