9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants are manufacturers of Aluminium Alloy ingots (Heading 76.01 of the CETA Schedule). They had cleared 5000 Kgs. of ingots under invoice No. 161, dated 29-9-2000 to M/s. Kerala Automobiles Ltd., Trivandrum on payment of duty of Rs. 62,800/-. Out of this quantity of ingots, 4905 Kgs. of ingots were found not conforming to the specifications of the buyer and hence returned to the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3L. The present appeal is against rejection of the refund claim. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that re-testing of the ingots returned by the first buyer was one of the processes prescribed under Rule 173L (1). It is argued that the expression any other similar process occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L encompasses the activity of re-testing also. Ld. Counsel has relied on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a mistake on the part of the manufacturer. Had this mistake not been there, the ingots would originally have been cleared as ADC-12 only. The only advantage of re-testing was that the manufacturer could realise their mistake and correctly designate the goods as ADC-12 . Thus the ingots in question were ADC-12 at all times in the manufacturer s correct parlance. This would mean that, in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found that the defective goods returned by the assessee s buyer were subjected to one or the other processes prescribed under Rule 173L. In none of these cases, mere testing of the returned goods was involved. In the case of M.V.Enterprises (supra), this Bench held to the effect that Rule 173L contained only procedural provisions. With great respect, I do not agree. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the claimant should fulfil at least substantive conditions prescribed thereunder. I have already noted that the requirement of the goods having to be subjected to any of the prescribed processes is substantive. This condition, admittedly, was not fulfilled in the instant case. 5. For the reasons noted above, the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
