9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the special procedure for removal of excisable goods laid down as per provisions of Rule 16 (C) of the Rules - Rule 16 is different from Rule 16 (C) and the refund stands rightly sanctioned – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 1763 of 2009 - 56216/2013(PB) - Dated:- 4-4-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) For the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim for Rs. 5,05,920/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In adjudication proceedings, the adjudicating authority vide impugned order sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 5,05,920/- to the respondents. 3. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority Revenue preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who also rejected the same, hence the present appeal. 4. Ongoing through the order of Commissioner (Appeals), we find that he has rejected the Revenues appeal by observing as under :- I find that the respondents have cleared the excisable goods for carrying out tests under the provisions of Rule 16 (C) of the Rules, under which a special procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the special procedure for removal of excisable goods laid down as per provisions of Rule 16 (C) of the Rules. 5. Ongoing through the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any reason to take a different view. As rightly held by him Rule 16 is different from Rule 16 (C) and the refund stands rightly sanctioned by both the authorities below. The Revenue appeal is devoid of merits. The same is accordingly rejected. Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
