9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal product on payment of duty. In certain cases, the duty-paid final product, which became defective and was not accepted by the customers, was received back in the appellants factory. Appellants, on receipt of defective goods, after intimating the Revenue Department, reprocessed the goods and, thereafter, cleared the same on payment of duty. Thereafter, appellants filed the refund claims under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules in respect of the duty paid on these goods. The refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority. Appellants filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals), vide impugned order, rejected the appeals on the ground that the returned goods regarding which D-3 intimation was filed, were not verified and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hariss Machine Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 678 (T) and in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 385 (T) in support of their claim. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that no verification was conducted in respect of the defective goods received in the factory of the appellants and the appellants were not maintaining any proper record in respect of movement of defective goods in their factory. 6. We find that in this case the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the appellants were duly filing D-3 intimations in respect of defective goods received in their factory. When the appellants were filing the D-3 intimations regarding receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods on payment of duty. Further, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Heriss Machine Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where the claim under Rule 173L of the Rules was rejected for lack of co-relation between the goods, cleared, the Tribunal held that when the manufacturer filed D-3 intimation and submitted all the documents, but no verification was carried out by the Department, the refund claims cannot be rejected on this ground. The Tribunal in the case of Hariss Machine Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held as under : There was, admittedly, no physical examination of the goods by the authorities on receipt of D-3 declaration of the party. Even according to the lower appellate authority, physical verification of the goods was of foremost importance fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
