9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty which were returned due to non-acceptance of the same by the concerned customer and which were subjected to dismantling and remanufacture for eventual despatch to the second customer. The refund claim in question was filed under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Objection was taken by the Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that the returned goods as well as remade goods which were then sent to another customer had not been properly correlated. When the appellant challenged the decision of the Assistant Commissioner before Commissioner (Appeals), the latter not only upheld the original decision of the Assistant Commissioner but fortified it with an additional ground of refund claim being barred by limitation. This order is unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the ground taken in the show cause notice or the order-in-original was also not in confirmity with the provisions of Section 11B since under the said provision the time limit for claiming refund in respect of returned goods is 6 months from the date of receipt of goods for the purpose of remaking, reconditioning etc. 4. Learned Counsel referred to the following decisions in support of his contentions :- (1) Samtel India Ltd. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 596 (T) (2) CCE v. Senapathy Whitelay Ltd. - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 768 (T) (3) Taylor Instruments Company - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 149 (T) It was pointed out by Shri B.V. Kumar, learned Counsel that in Samtel India Ltd. case, previous decisions on the subject of refund claim under Rule 173L had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty. 7. On the first question, Shri Victor Thiagaraj, SDR further clarified that scope of Rule 173L is limited to only those cases where the goods are returned due to certain manufacturing defect necessitating their return and remaking or remanufacture and not a case of the present type where the goods were returned not due to any defect but due to other factors like, financial problems faced by the customer due to which he was not able to take the goods and had to return the same. He added that though such an express provision may not be there in the said rule, the same could be easily inferred as having been implied therein judging by processes which are permitted to be or required to be gone through before redespatch of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture. In one of the cases considered in the earlier decision and also Board s instruction already referred to, the goods returned were Steel casting which were subjected to melting adding also further quantities of material. In such a case there could be no identity of products at the two stages. Once the returned goods have been properly declared by the assessee under D-3 intimation as required, it was for the department to identify at that stage whether the same were the goods which were originally sent out or were different. Thereafter, the goods are taken-up for manufacture which may include dismantling also. Remaking and remanufacturing are not beyond the scope of Rule 173L. In view of this finding, which has also been taken in pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
