9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me issue, namely the rejection of the refund claim in respect of defective goods returned for reprocessing and cleared again on payment of duty after re-processing. 4. Shri Prakash Shah, the Ld. Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, pleaded that in both the cases, the goods were returned being defective and on their arrival D-3 intimations given and taken into the prescribed register and they were also duly reprocessed within the period of six months and the re-processed goods were cleared on payment of duly. He gave the facts in each case as below : Details Date Appeal No. Appeal No. 314/88 41/89 Goods returned 19-12-85 16-6-86 D-3 Declaration given 20-12-85 16-6-86 Goods taken for processing Dec-Mar 86 July 86 Refund cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated is 533 in their letter, whereas in the record, it is mentioned as 553, which is also taken by the Collector (Appeals). He, therefore, felt that the records have not been properly maintained. He also contended that admittedly there is a delay of more than six months in rendering accounts. Hence the authorities are justified in rejecting the refund claims, since the provision of Rule 173L have not been complied with. 6. After hearing both the sides, we find that the only issue to be decided is whether on account of non-furnishing the extracts of the accounts maintained under sub-rule (2) of Rule 173L within a period of six months of the return of the goods to the factory, the refund claim under Rule 173L can be rejected. The provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim they could be taken to have complied with even this requirement. In this case, so long as the account has been maintained and they are available for inspection and the reprocessing has been done within six months from the date of return of the goods, it has to be taken that substantial provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 173L have been complied with. We are also strengthened in this view by looking into the provision of Section 11B of the CESA. This is the mandatory provision, whereas the procedures prescribed under Rules for grant of refund are not mandatory but they are directory and are procedural nature. As per the provisions of Section 11B in the case of goods returned for being remade, refined, reconditioned or subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
