9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The appellants originally cleared their goods on payment of duty on 9-3-1992. The same goods were returned to the appellants on 15-2-1993. The appellants filed the intimation with the Department under the provisions of Rule 173L and also filed their refund claim within a period of six months from the date of return of the goods. The said goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of removal, which condition is satisfied in the present matter. There is no condition in Rule 173L which makes it obligatory for the assessee to recondition the goods within a period of one year from the return of the goods in his factory. Therefore, such a condition imposed on the assessee by the authorities below in terms of Rule 173L, is not justified. We also find that the refund cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayable shall in no case be in excess of the duty payable on such goods after being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or subjected to any other similar process in the factory. 6. From the Order of the Commissioner, we find that the duty originally paid was to the tune of Rs. 80,336.50 of which the appellants are claiming refund, whereas the duty paid subsequently, after remaking of the goods in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
