Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (12) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in Rule 51A, clearly requires that the goods should be returned for the purposes of being re-made, reconditioning etc. which are specified in the said Rule. The purpose of return has to be one of the specified purposes and nothing beyond. If the purpose for return is different from for being re-made, re-conditioned etc., the provisions of Rule 173L will not be applicable. I do not agree with the appellants that there could be any distinction made between the initial purpose of return and final purpose of return as sought to be made by them. When the duty paid goods goes out of the factory, it is normally expected that these are not to be returned. If these are to be returned, the purpose can be only one and cannot be subdivided. Once the co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is granted of the duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory which were returned to the same factory or any other factory for being re-made, refined, reconditioned etc. whereas the present refund claims do not fulfil any of the requirements of Rule 173L in as much as no reason of return has been mentioned in Form V register and in most of the cases only repacking of the goods was undertaken in the factory on return and even this contention is not supported by any document like G.P. 1. 3. Shri Shiv Dass, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant in addition to making oral submissions submitted written submissions also. It has been submitted by the appellants that the appellants are engaged in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tor (Appeals) in his order-in-appeal dated 28-1-1991 confirmed the order passed by the Asstt. Collector holding that the testing was not covered by the process mentioned in Rule 173L. The ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that there is a decision wherein it has been held that the Tribunal can take into consideration additional facts which have been brought to its notice even subsequently if they are relevant. The ld. counsel cited and relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal : 1. Mohanlal Shamji Sons v. UOI - 1993 (61) E.L.T. 521 2. B. Prabhakara Rao v. D.Panakala Rao Ors. - AIR 1976 SC 1803 3. Atlas Cycle Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala - 1982 ITR (133) 231 4. Billa Jagmohan Reddy Anr. v. Bil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... On careful consideration of the evidence on record and the arguments of both sides, I find that the short issue for decision before me is whether the process of opening the goods and re-packing them can be termed as a process for the purpose of Rule 173L. For proper appreciation, Rule 173L is reproduced below :- 173L. - Refund of duty on goods returned to factory. - (1) The Collector may grant refund of duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory, which are returned to the same or any other factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or subjected to any other similar process in the factory : Provided that, - (i) such goods are returned to the factory within one year of the date of pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t covered by the provisions of Rule 173-L. However, the Asstt. Collector has rendered a definite finding that Gate Passes did not show even that the goods were repacked or packings of the goods were changed. From the above evidence on record, I find that the goods were received back in the factory in original packings and, therefore, the stipulations under Rule 173L were not fulfilled. Having regard to the fact that the goods were not received back in the factory for the purpose of being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or subject to any other similar process. Case law cited and relied upon by the appellants is not relevant to the facts of the present case and can, therefore, be easily distinguished. I do not see any reason to interfere wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates