9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. Two major components of the machine, viz. knitting head assembly and take down drive assembly both falling under SH 8448.90, were returned by the buyer on 19-5-99 and receipt thereof was intimated to the department by the appellants (D3 - Intimation) in terms of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is claimed by the appellants that the Central Excise Range officer, upon receipt of such intimation, visited their factory and made the requisite verification. Prior to receipt of the above components from the buyer, the appellants had, on 26-4-99, supplied to the Noida party one unit of knitting head assembly and one unit of take down drive assembly as replacement under cover of invoice evidencing payment of duty of Rs. 1,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently was a knitting machine falling under SH 8447.00 and therefore the requirement under Rule 173L for claiming refund of the duty paid original on the components did not get satisfied in this case. In this connection, she has also claimed support from the above decision of the Tribunal in Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. (supra). Reliance has also been placed on the Tribunal's decision in Dekka Chem Ltd v. CCE - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 935 (Tri. Mumbai), wherein, while dealing with a refund claim under Rule 173L, the Division Bench of the Tribunal held that drug and drug intermediate, falling under different Tariff headings were not of the same class. Ld. Consultant has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Pudamjee Pulp Paper Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case, the returned components [SH 8448.90] were incorporated in a knitting machine [SH 8447.00] which was cleared to another customer, which clearance is irrelevant to the refund claim in question. It is difficult to accept the plea that the goods falling under Heading 8448 and those falling under Heading 8447 are of the same class. None of the decisions cited before me supports the appellants argument that these goods are to be treated as belonging to the same class. Yet another provision of Rule 173L is that the amount of refund payable shall in no case be in excess of duty payable on such goods after being remade, refined, reconditioned or the like. This provision presupposes that the second clearance of the goods must be af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
