9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under Chapter Heading 70.30 of CETA. The appellant filed refund claim of a duty amounting Rs. 27,246.84 on 1-1-1990 on the ground that fully finished flanges were cleared to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and duty was paid on 27-1-1989. The goods were not taken delivery by IOC on the ground of delay and the goods were returned on 17-7-1989. On 18-7-1989 the appellant filed D3 Intimation under Rule 173L/173H and accounted for in the register maintained under Rule 173H. Show cause notice dated 17-2-1992 was issued under Section 11B by the Assistant Collector. A reply was filed on 17-2-1992. The Assistant Collector in the order had held that claim under Rule 173L could be considered only if the goods returned are re-made or refined. Here the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods were returned, the provisions of Rule 173H will never be applicable. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. Any manufactured goods which has suffered excise duty, can be returned to the place of manufacture only in terms of Rule 173H. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 173H provides for grounds under which the goods could be returned. Those grounds are enumerated under clauses (9), (9)(a), (b), (c) (d) (e)). The goods had been returned because the original purchaser, viz. IOC had rejected the goods. When the goods are taken back by the assessee in their factory, in my view the provisions of Rule 173H cannot be applicable. The grounds of retention of the duty paid goods in the factory are reflected in the clauses (a) to (e) of Rule 173H. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable to the appellant. Nor it is a case of refund under section 11B, since it is not an erroneous payment of duty or short or excess payment of duty; nor it is covered under Rule 173H or 173L. The finding of the A.C. that the refund is time barred is also valid, since it appears that appellant paid duty on 27-1-1989 whereas they filed the refund claim on 1-1-1990. Hence, the order of rejection of the claim by the A.C. is well reasoned and perfectly legal. There is no ground to interfere with the orders of the A.C. I entirely agree with the above observation and finding as according to me finding given by the appellate authority is quite cogent, reasonable and logic. 6. Alternatively, if it is to be argued that when the duty has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
