9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 15/2003 (H-IV) CE and 23/2003 (H-I) CE both dated 24-2-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common, the same was taken up together for hearing and are being di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Rs. 1047,672/- under Rule 173L of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 15-2-1999. The refund arises on account of the fact that the duty paid goods were received in the factory for re-processing and subsequent clearance on payment of duty. The goods were received on 19-6-1998 and D3 intimation was filed on the same date. The refund claim was rejected on the ground of time bar. The relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 424 (Tri.) wherein it was held that the assessee is entitled for refund of claim and the same is not hit by time limitation. 5.The Revenue in their appeals has stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied on the Tribunal decision where the facts are different. In the case decided by the Tribunal, the appellants submitted a letter seeking refund to the Super ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained rule and the very fact that the respondents filed D3 intimation indicates that he is doing it for claiming the refund subsequently. He maintained that since Rule 173L is self contained rule, a separate refund claim is not needed. 8 The learned SDR submits that the respondents did not fulfil all conditions of Rule 173L as the goods were not re-despatched after reprocessing within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
