9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid on the yarn received back into their factory for doubling purpose. The contention of the assessee was that the amount claimed was originally paid by them by Debit in RG 23A Part II Account and have requested for payment of the refund amount by adjustment in their RG 23A Part II Account. As per Rule 173L(1), the goods are to be returned to the factory within one year of the date of payment of duty. Whereas in the present case the goods cleared from 24-3-1995 to 30-9-1995 have been received back into their factory only on 17-4-1996. The goods cleared under the invoices No. 3/24-3-1995, 4/27-3-1995, 5/29-3-1995, 6/30-3-1995 and 7/31-3-1995 on which the refund has been claimed were received back after expiry of the period of one year from the date of payment of duty. Hence the refund claim on the quantity covered under the above invoices appeared to be liable for rejection. The amount of duty claimed as refund in respect of these 5 invoices amounted to Rs. 29,940/- [BED Rs. 26,036/- and AED (T) Rs. 3,904/-]. After deduction of the ineligible amount, the claim only to the extent of Rs. 32,832/- [BED Rs. 28,549/- and AED (T) Rs. 4,283/-] appeared to be liable for sanction. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the same goods. He therefore requested that the impugned order-in-appeal may be set aside and the Tribunal may order for the refund Rs. 29,940/0. 5. Appearing on behalf of the revenue Shri A. Jayachandran submitted that it is a statutory provision under Rule 173L that the goods for re-processing, etc., under Rule 173L must be received within one year from the date of despatch from the original manufacturer. Since this condition has not been fulfilled, the appellants are not entitled for the full amount of refund of Rs. 62,772/-. He therefore submitted that out of the total amount of Rs. 62,772/- an amount of Rs. 32,832/- has been sanctioned as refund in respect of the goods which were received for re-processing within a period of one year from the date of original payment of duty. He further submitted that they have been denied the refund claim only to the extent of Rs. 29,940/- on goods which were received after a period of one year in the factory for re-processing, that is to say, after the statutory period of one year. Therefore, in view of this statutory provisions which are specific in nature, the refund claim of Rs. 29,940/- has been rightly rejected both by the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from the Asstt. Commissioner or from the Range officer and in view of the market condition, they received the goods after filing D3 intimation to the Range officer on 17-4-1996. The appellants further contended that they were of the impression that the Asstt. Commissioner is the proper officer to grant permission in such cases where goods were received beyond one year and if, not, it would be sent to the Proper Officer for granting permission as is being done in normal course. Rule 173L(1)(i) and 173L (3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 reproduced below for easy reference. Rule 173L. Refund of duty on goods returned to factory. (1) The Commissioner may grant refund of the duty paid on manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory, which are returned to the same or any other factory for being re-made, refined, reconditioned or subjected to any other similar process in the factory : Provided that - (1) such goods are returned to the factory within one year of the date of payment of duty or within such further period or periods not exceeding one year, in the aggregate, as the Commissioner may, on sufficient cause being shown, permit in any particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory after more than one year for reprocessing etc., refund not permissible under Rule 173L ibid, if conditions therein not having been satisfied. The observation contained in Paras 4 and 5 of the Hon ble CEGAT are as under : 4. After hearing Shri Singh, though I find that the arguments of the ld. advocate look attractive, there are certain legal aspects, which are required to be looked into. Section 11B of the Central Excises Act covers refund of any duty of excise. It includes not only duty paid by mistake or otherwise disputed as also duty paid on goods exported, goods returned for being remade, reconditioning etc. Provisions are also made accordingly in that Section itself for reckoning the relevant dates from which six months limitation is to be computed. Under Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules, excepting as otherwise expressly provided in the Rules, no duty paid goods should be allowed to enter or be retained in, any part or premises of a factory (emphasis supplied). On going through the other provisions of the Cen. Excise Rules, I find that in the case of goods covered by Self Removal procedure, only under provisions of Rules 173H, 173L, 173M, 173MM, goods clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
