9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing Shri Hardik Modh, learned Advocate and Shri A.K. Saxena, learned J.D.R., I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is of refund claim of Rs. 1,15,403/-. As per the appellants, the said refund claim is of the duty paid on the inputs which have been used by them in the manufacture of the exported goods, cleared on bond and the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claims because they could not prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyers as it is or by adding the same in the cost of production of these final product. 2. Accordingly, he rejected the refund claim. On an appeal against the same, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants had filed the refund claim under Rule 173L which is not applicable and Rule 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of such amount. As such, the appellants would be entitled to the refund, if they can establish that it was not possible for them to utilise the credit for payment of duty in respect of clearances made for home consumption. The appellants have strongly contended that filing of refund claim under the wrong rule does not take away their substantive benefit otherwise available to them. In any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by limitation. 5. I do not find much merit in the above contention of the learned J.D.R. The application having been filed by the appellant well within the period and in respect of the refund of the credit of duty paid on the inputs the wrong quoting of the rule, by itself will not be sufficient to deny the benefit, otherwise available to the appellant. However, it need to be examined as to whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
