9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the condition of the Rule. 3. The contention of the appellant is that earlier the goods were cleared to M/s Tata Cellular Hyd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged in the show-cause notice that the same goods were not cleared, as the description of goods in the invoices are different. The contention is that the process of retesting and realignment was completed on 14-6-01, which is within the six months from the date of receipt of the goods. The appellant also filed D-3 intimation on receipt of the goods in the factory of goods in the factory. The conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary retesting and realignment was completed on 14-6-01 and the same goods were cleared on payment of duty on second time, therefore, the rejection of refund claim is not sustainable. 4. The Revenue relied upon the finding of the lower authority to submit that the appellant had not fully complied with the conditions of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. 5. I find that as per provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared first time and when the goods were cleared second time is also the same as at the time of clearance some abbreviations are mentioned in invoices whereas the second time the full description of the machines were also their. In these circumstances. The impugned order is not sustainable and set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Dictated pronounced in open Court on 30-8-06) - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
