9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty, under AR. 3A to M/s. Brakes India Ltd. However, the consignee vide their letter dated 19-1-1984, appears to have rejected the goods on account of some manufacturing defect. The respondents however with an alleged desire to divert the same to the local market decided to pay the duty on the goods in question and accordingly debited the sum of Rs. 40,087.85 in their PLA A/c vide entry No. 83, dated 13-3-1984. On 3-9-1984 however M/s. Brakes India Ltd. returned the goods under AR. 3A No. 41 and GP-2 No. 67 and on receipt thereof, the respondents filed D-3 declaration on 12-9-1984 and filed a refund claim on 17-10-1984 for the duty paid. The Asstt. Collector however vide his order dated 8-3-1985 rejected the claim as time barred. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of the respondents could not have been adjudicated upon, under the said provisions and that the Collector (Appeals) had thus misdirected himself in basing his finding on Rule 196B. In his submission, the goods, when brought back to the factory, were the duty paid goods for which separate procedures for claiming refund or remission existed and the Collector (Appeals) ought to have examined the refund claim in his appeal from that angle. He also referred to the order of the Asstt. Collector rejecting the claim and pleaded that the said order being in conformity with the statutory provisions, ought to be restored. 4. Shri Parakh, the ld. Advocate while supporting the order submitted that there was a straight case of removal under Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceiving the goods under AR 3A declaration form and making the entry in RG 1 register. The error by the respondents, though may give rise to some sympathetic approach, cannot be overlooked while considering the statutory provisions. The statutory provisions are very clear, namely when the goods have suffered duty, provisions of Chapter X would not stand attracted. The approach of the Collector (Appeals) therefore appears to be not justified and the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be sustained. 6. It may however be observed that the Collector (Appeals) has concentrated only on one issue and has not examined the appellants case for grant of refund from any other permissible angle, nor has he scrutinised the order of the Asstt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
