9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iz., M/s. Ranjita Enterprises and cleared the same to the said customers on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 90,619.13 under invoice dated 21-3-1997. M/s. Ranjita Enterprises who had ordered for supply of the said goods for the purpose of certain project, informed the appellants by letter dated 14-7-1997 that on account of cancellation of project, they were returning the goods to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-L but, in fact, had been returned by their customers on account of cancellation of the project. According to the Assistant Commissioner, the goods so returned did not fall within the ambit of Rule 173-L and therefore, the appellants were not entitled to refund of the duty originally paid on the goods. The appeal filed by the party against the Assistant Commissioner's order was rejected by the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate duty. This fact is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the subsequent clearance of the reconditioned goods to the new customer was done by the appellants under D.3 intimation to the proper Central Excise authority in accordance with the provisions of Rule 173-L. The only ground stated by the lower authorities for rejecting the appellants refund claim for Rs. 90/619.13 is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances in which the case had been returned by the original consignees were immaterial for purposes of refund under Rule 173-L. I note that this decision of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The ld. DR has not brought to my notice any decision to the contrary. 5. In the light of the above observations and findings, I allow this appeal with consquential benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
