9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities that the appellants had brought in the goods in terms of Rule 173L and the appellants claim for refund could be taken to have been made by virtue of this intimation. He in this connection has cited the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Kothari Chemicals Industries v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 506 and drawn our attention to para 3 of the Tribunal s order, which is reproduced below for convenience of reference : We observe that the appellants had placed all the facts regarding their manufacture before the Central Excise authorities and repeatedly requested for permission for availing of facility under Rule 56A. The Collector (Appeals) had even held that they were eligible for consideration of the said facility. It is seen that the appellants wanted to avail of concession under 56A as they were repeatedly asking for the permission for availing the credit of the duty paid on the sludge. Unless the permission as required in terms of the conditions of Rule 56A was given by the concerned Assistant Collector the appellants could not have availed of the benefit of proforma credit available under Rule 56A. Since the permission was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusing the records, we find that the basic objection of the Department is that duty paying documents have been submitted after about 18 months while as per the Trade Notice dated 3-12-1984 of the Meerut Collectorate, the documents should have been submitted within a period of three months. There is no dispute that the D-3 intimations dated 30-4-1985 and dated 8-7-1985 have been filed within the stipulated time. This is also borne out from the letter dated 18-11-1985 of the Superintendent to the effect that D-3 intimations as per the list enclosed have been filed but duty paying documents have not been submitted. Admittedly, the appellants have submitted photocopies of duty paying documents Para 13, triplicate copies of the Bill of Entry only under cover of the letter dated 26-7-1986 and the original of the triplicate by letter dated 30-9-1986. The relevant portion of the Trade Notice relied on by the Department reads as under :- The issue relating to production of documents evidencing payment of duty with the D-3 intimations has been examined and it has been decided that documents evidencing payment of duty should be produced within a period of one month of the filing of D-3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, intimation regarding their arrival had been given; the goods seen and the D-3 duly endorsed about the identity of the goods having been verified. We do not quite follow how in the absence of gate pass identity was taken to be established; but at this stage of the proceedings the fact of verification is not open to challenge. Rule 56A(3)(i)(b) does provide the relevant pass has to accompany the raw material. The claim that this provision is mandatory is belied by the existence of two trade notices - one each of the Hyderabad and Madras Collectorates. These notices specifically provide that the goods can be brought under the cover of an invoice and the duty paying documents such as gate pass or certificate, can be submitted within 15 days or one month from the date of arrival of the goods in the factory. This itself would show that the requirement regarding production of gate pass is procedural in nature. If identity of the goods could be established - without the gate pass or the certificate of payment of duty, the presentation of such a document at a later date does not in any way affect the minimum checks necessary for the purposes of Rule 56A. Though, therefore, in this case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinguishable. He also cited the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nanavati Chemical Industries v. U.O.I reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 535 (Gujarat) wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that the Departmental authorities are bound by the provisions of statute and in case the claim has been claimed beyond the prescribed limit, the same has to be rejected in terms of Section 11B. 4. I have considered the pleas made by both the sides. I observe that Rule 173L is in the nature of exception carved out in the statute to facilitate the return of the goods which after clearance have been found to be defective and are required to be re-made, refined or re-conditioned etc. and under this Rule a provision has been made for refund of duty paid on the returned goods and this refund is subject to the appellants filing D-3 intimation and following other procedures regarding the process of re-fining etc. being carried out, within a period of 6 months and the refund claim has to be made for the excise duty paid on the goods that are returned to be re-made, refined or re-conditioned. It is to be noted that the process of refining etc. in the normal course would not be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
