9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 M.T. of stranded steel wires (hereinafter referred to as the goods ) on 17-7-1989. On 20-9-1989 they informed of the return of the goods by their customers as it was not reportedly required by them. The appellants had claimed that the goods were required to be subjected to the process of removing the rust. The jurisdictional authorities considered that the reason for return of the goods was not covered by the scheme of Rule 173L of the Rules. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad, who adjudicated the matter held that the refund claim did not fall under Rule 173L of the Rules. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and held that the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of refund of central excise duty and that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 173L has not been complied with by the appellants and as such a correct view has been taken by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. 4. I have carefully considered the matter. The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the refund claim filed by the appellants was covered by the provisions of Rule 173L. Brief facts as summarised by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) are as under - The goods were originally cleared by the appellants from their factory on 17-7-1989 for Nagpur. After the goods were removed from the factory of the appellants, a telegram was received from their customers at Nagpur on 19-7-1989 in which the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that when the goods were returned to the appellants factory, the goods were rusted and required to be reconditioned. Of course, the customers had returned the goods as they did not want the goods at that particular time. The goods were actually returned as such to the appellants factory. The appellants factory was under lock out at that time and the goods had to be kept outside the factory premises. Due to rains the goods got rusted and needed reconditioning before they could be made market worthy. 6. Under Rule 173L, the refund of the duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory could be granted subject to the conditions, limitations and requirements as provided in the Rule itself. The refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim on the ground that the goods were returned by the customers on a ground different than the one stipulated in Rule 173L, neither the Assistant Collector of Central Excise nor the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had gone into the conditions, limitations and requirements subject to which the refund claim was to be granted. 8. In the case of Swastic Insulated Wires and Strips v. CCE, Jamshedpur, supra, the Tribunal had observed that in a case where the returned goods had got deteriorated during the long storage in the transporter s godown, and, therefore, were required to be reconditioned etc., the benefit of refund claim could not be denied on the ground that the goods were not found defective by the consignee. In the case of Hindu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
