2004 (5) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oth sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellants was dismissed. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machines and cleared one machine on payment of duty. Due to some problem regarding the payment of price of the machine. The appellants received the machine back in their factory and D-3 in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1944 as they erroneously paid duty. This claim was also rejected by the lower authority on the ground of limitation. 4. The contention of the appellants is that as they initially filed refund claim under Rule 173L of the Rules which were within a period of limitation, therefore, now Revenue cannot reject the claim for alternative pleas claiming the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urer need not to pay the duty second time subject to the conditions imposed under this Rule. Appellants claimed the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on 6-10-1999 whereas duty was paid on 1-9-1998. 5. In this case the refund claim filed by the appellants under Rule 173L is rejected on the ground that the process undertaken by the appellants on returned machines does not amount t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X