TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.00. A quantity of 6.075 Kgs. of duty paid explosives was returned to their factory by the appellants Depot Agent, M/s. B.P. Agarwalla on 22-6-1994 on the ground of quality defects. The same was required to be reprocessed by the appellants and returned to the said agent. After following the procedure prescribed under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the processed quantity of the explosives in question was cleared by the appellants on 8-11-1994 on payment of duty under their Invoice No. 1566. The appellants factory is under physical control. On the D-3 intimation dated 22-6-1994, the Inspector of Central Excise concerned had made a note This D-3 was received on 22-6-1994. Returned goods brought and kept in Magazine No. 21 wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the time-limit prescribed under Rule 173L (3) of the Rules. He submitted that it is not disputed that they had satisfied all the other conditions of Rule 173L. He further submitted that the records etc. were maintained by the appellants and the goods were cleared within the prescribed period after reprocessing the same and after making entry in the requisite records as is evident from the note dated 8-11-1994 made by the Inspector concerned on their D-3 Intimation itself. He, further, clarified that subsequently on asking, the records were submitted in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, though it was beyond a period of six months. He pleaded that the refund claim should not have been denied by the authorities below on such a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en observed by the Honourable High Court that the violation of Rule 173L (3) is not a mere technical and procedural violation and in the absence of any application for relaxation of this condition as provided under Rule 173L (4), the non-application of Rule 173L (3) has to be upheld. In view of the above decision, learned JDR, prayed for rejection of the appeal. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I find that the fact of return of the duty paid goods, their reprocessing in the appellants factory and their re-clearance of the same on payment of necessary duty, is not disputed at all by the Department. In fact, the fact of maintenance of records and accounts of the returned goods is also not disputed. It is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
