9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rollers to M/s. South Eastern Coal Field, a Government of India Undertaking. The said spare rollers were rejected by the appellant s customers and as such after prolonged correspondence between appellants and the customers the rollers were brought back to the factory for the purposes of repairing/reconditioning/reprocessing under the provisions of Rule 173L of the C. Ex. Rules, 1944. The due procedure of filing D-3 intimations etc. were followed by the appellants. However, inasmuch as the goods were received back in the factory after a period of one year from the date of original clearance, they applied to the proper officer for extending time-limit of one year as provided under Rule 173L. 3. The appellants filed refund claims of differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication. In any case, the said application was required to be decided before rejecting the refund claims of the appellants on the ground that no such extension order could have been shown by them to the Adjudicating authority. It is not case of the Revenue that extension has been refused by the proper officer. Accordingly, I feel that the appellants application should be decided (first and then their refund claims. 7. A portion of the refund claim has also been denied on the ground that they have replaced the grease caps with the rain caps and the rollers have been made free to suit conveyor. Assistant Commissioner has observed that exact process carried out by the assessee has not been disclosed and as such, the assessees contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excisable goods. In the present matter, the rollers falling under Chapter Heading 8421.00 would be deemed to have cleared for captive consumption and as such this objection cannot be sustained. 9. Another view adopted by the authorities below is that as the appellants have not cleared reprocessed goods till filing of their refund claims, the same cannot be sanctioned. The appellants contention is that there is no provisions in terms of Rule 173L that reprocessed goods should be cleared before settlement of refund claims. On going through the provisions of Rule 173L I find the above submission to be correct. However, I find in terms of Rule 173L (1) proviso (4), the amount of refund payable was in no case be in excess of duty payable o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
