9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The refund claim was rejected by the proper officer and on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the order of the lower authority. In the mean time the Appellants claimed to have cleared the returned goods, after reprocessing, under 9 invoices and the Appellants pleaded before the CESTAT that they are eligible for the refund of duty paid for the second time. The CESTAT vide order dated 23-6-2004 remanded the case back to the original authority. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant brought back duty paid goods, after giving D-3 intimation and after reprocessing the same, cleared on payment of duty presuming that the case is covered under Rule 173L. The Department instead informed that the case is covered under Rule 173H, meanin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner. This direction was dated 4-11-1997 and they had once again submitted a letter to the Chief Commissioner on 28-12-07 requesting that relaxation was required by them under Rule 173L and not under Rule 173H. He submits that duty has been paid twice on the same components and therefore they are eligible for the refund. The Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with the issue in detail and therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) need not to be interfered with. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the directions of the Tribunal were very clear. The Commissioner (Appeals) was required to verify whether duty was paid again at the time of re-issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were received back on 21-7-96 were actually used in the manufacture of those goods which were finally cleared on payment of duty. As rightly observed by the Commissioner, the only option available is going by the documentary evidence since the matter is ten years old. Since the final products were different from the goods which were received back, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show issue of these products for use in the manufacture of the finished goods and a proper connection and correlation between the two, it is not possible to accept the appellants contention. In fact the appellants contention that the rejected goods were reissued and cleared as parts/components is also not established by the Form-V register as righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
