9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned D.R. The submissions made by both the learned Advocate and learned D.R. and my findings are as under :- 3.1. Learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants had cleared Lux 100 Gms. wrapper under two invoices No. 495 and 525 for 2093 kgs. & 2150 kgs. respectively to M/s. Vashisti Detergents Ltd.; that out of the said quantity 3265 kgs. of the wrapper was rejected by the customers on account of loose winding and returned the same on 17-7-99 for which they filed D-3 intimation indicating therein that the returned goods would be subjected to the process of rewinding; that the goods were verified by the Inspector; that the goods were despatched to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (M/s. H.L.L. in short) on payment of duty under three invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2093 kgs. and did not take into consideration the second invoice No. 525 under which 2150 kgs. of wrappers were removed. In view of this the Appellants are eligible to the refund of duty in respect of these goods. [Appeal No. E/1004/03-NB] 4.1. The learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants had cleared, under invoice Nos. 402, dated 16-6-99 and 553, dated 12-7-99 Lifebuoy 75 GMS Soap Wrappers weighing 26.4 kgs. and 758.0 kgs. to M/s. H.L.L. who returned 778 kgs. on 7-9-99 on account of loose winding; that they filed D-3 intimation with the Department and the Inspector verified the goods on 7-9-99 itself; that the goods were sent back to M/s. H.L.L. after rewinding on 15-9-99; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Order dated 30- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of Rule 173L are not attracted. All the decisions and Board's Circular F. No. 261/23A/2178-CX, dated 21-2-80 relied upon in the grounds of appeal are not applicable as they refer to the goods cleared after carrying out the process of refining etc. and not to the goods received back from the customers. Thus the refund of duty is not admissible to the Appellants in respect of these goods. [Appeal No. E/1005/03-NB] 5.1. The Appellants in Appeal No. 1006/03-NB had cleared Lifebuoy 150 GMS Soap wrappers weighing 2085 kgs. & 1339 kgs. under two Invoice Nos. 340 & 341 both dated 5-6-99 on payment of duty Rs. 94,997/- to M/s. H.L.L. who rejected 2488 kgs. and returned the same to the Appellants on 15-7-99 for which they filed requisite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , particularly when the said invoice referred to Appellants invoice Nos. 340-41 dated 5-6-99 and goods had been verified by the Range Officer. The appeal is thus allowed. 6.1. In appeal No. E/1007/03-NB, the Appellants had cleared Hot melt 3404 to M/s. Creative Poly Pack under invoice No. 432 dated 22-6-99 for 500 kgs. on payment of duty. The customer returned 300 kgs. of the goods for which the Appellants filed D-3 intimation indicating therein that the returned goods would be subjected to the process of cutting/slitting. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the goods had been substituted as Hot melt XXX was sent after reprocessing against the originally cleared Hot melt. The Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
