9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were returned to the appellants and the same were received by them under intimation to the Department. The appellants say that these quantities of Caustic Soda Lye were removed as such, without payment of duty to various other customers. Such clearances, however, were made as integral parts of larger consignments of the goods. It is the appellants case that, in each such consignment, duty had been paid on differential quantity (virgin production) of the Caustic Soda Lye, but the finding of the department is that the goods returned by the customers was again subjected to a process amounting to manufacture and the resulting product was removed to third parties at lower price. According to the department, the re-processed goods should have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty, they would not have mixed the said goods with virgin production of Caustic Soda Lye for the purpose of clearance. I have to accept this submission of the learned JDR. Contextually, it has to be mentioned that the relevant rules which could apply to the facts of this case have been brought to my notice by Shri T.S. Balasubramaniam, learned Advocate. He has pointed out that sub-rule (4) of Rule 173H, read with sub-rule (3) thereof, would cover the factual situation. He has also referred to Rule 51A. On a perusal of the provisions, I note that sub-rule (1) of Rule 173H, which is pari materia with Rule 51A, prohibits return of duty-paid excisable goods into the factory except as hereinafter provided . Sub-rules (3) (4) of Rule 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to remove duty-paid goods (returned by customers) without payment of duty subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Chief Commissioner. As already indicated, the Chief Commissioner had no occasion to specify any condition in this case. 4. As already noted above, the goods in question returned by the customers were received in the assessee s factory under D-3 intimation to the department. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel that these declarations given in Form D-3 were duly verified by the department also. In the circumstances, it must be possible, in this case, for the Chief Commissioner to verify the relevant facts and take a decision in terms of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 173H as these rules stood at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
