9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent: Dr. A.S. Gill, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per. Archana Wadhwa :- Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred the present appeal. We have accordingly heard learned DR Shri Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Revenue and Dr. A.S. Gill, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, the respondents have filed the refund claim of Rs. 4,96,000/- in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that refund claim did not fall under the purview of clause IA of the ibid Notification. The respondents then filed refund claim for Rs. 5,05,920/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions as specified by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner permitted the respondents to remove the goods for testing subject to the condition that the goods to be received back within six months from the date of removal of said goods. In the instant case, when the respondents failed to receive the said goods in their factory within the stipulated period of six month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 16 (C) of the Rules and duty was paid subsequently when goods could not be brought back in the factory within six months period. Secondly, Rule 16 (1) deals with those goods which are received back in the factory for recondition, repair or re-made whereas in the present case goods were not received back because of above stated purposes, but received back after carrying out tests under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
