2008 (4) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lants have made a prayer to decide the appeal on merit. Accordingly, we have gone through the impugned order of the Commissioner vide which he has rejected the refund claim of Rs. 64,973/- filed in terms of Rule 173L on the ground that the goods were received in the factory after a period of 1 year from the date of original clearance and there was no condonation of delay by the Commissioner. For .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder of adjudicating authority denying the refund on the ground discussed in this para, is sustainable. The case law cited by the appellant is not also relevant since the facts are different. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim the refund of the amount in respect of goods which were returned to the factory after the expiry of one year. 2. After going through the above, we do not f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X