9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue is against grant of refund of duty of Rs. 1,01,763/- to the respondents under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The respondents had cleared on payment of duty two units of their product (Minimum Oil Circuit Breaker) to their customer on 28-4-1995. Subsequently, the goods were received back under Rule 173L for reconditioning. After reconditioning, the respondents cleared one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that refund of the duty originally paid was admissible under Rule 173L(1). The present appeal of the Revenue is against the appellate Commissioner s decision. 2. The only ground raised in this appeal is that the respondents are not entitled to claim refund of the duty paid on the goods which were exported, in view of the Hon ble Madras High Court s decision in Sabari Starch v. CCE, 1992 (58) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered by the High Court, the petitioner had purchased duty-paid starch from M/s. Lakshmi Starch Ltd., Hyderabad and had reprocessed the same with some chemicals in their factory to make it fit for export. After such reprocessing, the petitioner exported the goods without payment of duty. Subsequently, the petitioner claimed rebate of the duty paid on starch by M/s. Lakshmi Starch Ltd., unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r different inasmuch as what the respondents claimed was refund of the duty paid by themselves on the goods originally. The goods was returned by the customer for reconditioning under Rule 173L. The reconditioned goods was cleared without payment of duty, for export. In similar circumstances, it was held by the Tribunal in Metazinc case that refund of duty was admissible under Rule 173L(1). The de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
