9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-processing, the appellants exported the goods without payment of duty under bond in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that they filed a refund claim under Rule 173L for an amount of Rs. 4,83,139/- and that both the authorities below held that the refund was inadmissible in view of the provisions of Clause (iv) of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L. 3. I have examined the records and heard both sides. 4. Ld. Advocate Sh. Ramesh Krishnan for the appellants submits that, in the appellants' own earlier case, this Bench held a similar refund claim to be admissible as per Final Order dated 20-12-2001 following the ratio of the decision of a 2-Member Bench of this Tribunal in Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower appellate authority chose to follow Enzo Chem Laboratories (supra) and concurred with the adjudicating authority. 6. In Metazinc India Ltd. (supra), the assessee had removed their products on payment of duty to M/s. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. but the latter returned the goods for re-processing. The assessee re-processed the goods and removed the same to a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) at 'Nil' rate of duty under AR-3 procedure. The Bench, after examining the provisions of Rule 173L(1), held that the restriction placed by Clause (iv) of the proviso to Rule 173L(1) was in respect of the duty 'payable' on the re-processed goods and not the duty actually paid. The Bench clarified that Clause (iv) ibid did not contemplate a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow the view taken by the 2-Member Bench in Metazinc (India) Ltd. and, accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to refund of duty subject to the restriction placed by Clause (iv) of the proviso to Rule 173L (1). 7. I am now on the question as to the extent to which the refund claim could be allowed to the appellants. Clause (iv) ibid limits this extent to the quantum of duty payable on the re-processed goods. In the present case, even according to the appellants, the quantum of duty payable on the 6360 pairs of footwear exported under the AR-4 procedure of Rule 13 is Rs. 3,65,878/- (vide Para 4 of the memorandum of appeal). The appeal memo has even gone to the extent of stating that the refund claim itself was filed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
