9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority rejecting the claim for refund an amount of Rs. 4,63,783/- claimed by the appellants under Rule 173L of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 (CER). The facts of the case are that M/s. Delphi TVS Diesel Systems Ltd. had received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m for refund was not admissible for non-compliance with Rule 173L as regards time prescribed for receipt back of the goods cleared on payment of duty. 2. Before the Tribunal the appellants have taken ground that the request for condonation of delay in receipt of the goods was made in reply to the Show Cause Notice proposing to reject the claim for refund. They also relied on the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 173L implied a request for extension of time for receipt that of the goods, we find, cannot be countenanced. In the entire proceedings before the authorities, we do not find any request for extension of time to bring the goods returned under cover of provisions under Rule 173L of CER. We find that the case law cited by ld. Counsel do not support the case of the appellants. We find that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Crompton Greaves Ltd. case (supra), the ratio of that decision does not apply to the instant case. The judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat is not on condonation of delay in receiving the returned goods under Rule 173L. Moreover, their lordships had ordered relaxation exercising under their powers in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the ratio of this judgment cannot also be applied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
