2005 (5) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t appeal has been filed by the Appellant M/s. Schenck Jenson Nicholson Ltd., Ranchi against the order No. 26/RAN/C.Ex./Appeal/2003, dated 29-4-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi. In the above order the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order from the lower authority rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant for Rs. 2,07,319/- (Two lakhs seven thousand and three hundred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds of appeal. He submits that the appellant did not claim under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 but it is a case under Rule 173H(4) where duty has been paid erroneously second time on the returned goods. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellant were eligible for bringing into the factory under Rule 173H as it does not matter where the appellant quoted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Central Excise Rules and the appellant have paid the duty as per the directions of the Department, the appellants are entitled for the refund claim provided it is proved that they have paid the duty twice and conditions under Rule 173H has been fulfilled. In view of above, I remand the case to the lower authority who will verify the above facts and if both these conditions are fulfilled th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X