9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein filed refund claims under Rule 173L on the ground that they had supplied capsules to customers; that the customers rejected the goods being of sub-standard in quality and returned the same; that the respondents in turn remelted the said rejected goods for production of fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and after remaking they were cleared on payment of duty. He submits that since duty was paid twice, therefore, the respondents filed claim for refund as the law does not require that duty should be paid twice on the same goods. He submitted that the main objection of the Department was that duty paying documents were not furnished. He submitted that the duty paying documents were the invoices in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consultant of the respondents has shown a copy of Bomaby-I Collectorate Trade Notice No. 89/89, dated 3-11-89 wherein the Department allows removal of such defective inputs on payment of duty under Rule 57F(1)(ii) and such goods after reprocessing can be cleared on payment of duty under Rule 173L. Hence we find no merit in the appeal from the Revenue. We direct the Assistant Collector to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was relevance of D-3 intimation and payment of duty at the final stage when remade goods were cleared. There was no dispute on these two aspects. I further note that similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Supreme Industries cited above and the Tribunal in that case held that refund was admissible to the appellant under Rule 173L and directed the Assistant Collector to recons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
