9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Gate Passes on 27-9-1981, after payment of duty. These units were not accepted by the customers and the same were brought back for repairing and overhauling on 30-4-1982 and 8-6-1982. It is reported that free replacements were given to the customers and excise duty was paid on these replacements and therefore, the appellants filed the claim for refund of duty paid on initial consignments which were brought back claiming refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector holding that the declarations as prescribed under Rule 173H were not produced and the claim was not tenable under Rule 173L. In the appeal preferred by the appellants, the Collector (Appeals) held that during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid could not be considered as duty payment and they were eligible to get the refund. 4. Mrs. Lipika M. Roy Choudhary, the ld. SDR for the respondents submitted that the appellants have put forward their claim for refund on return of the goods under D-3 declaration and has specifically invoked the provisions of Rule 173H in the application. In her submission, the articles that were despatched, were duly manufactured goods which turned out to be defective. Mere detection of the defect could not make the article as not falling under the ambit of Section 4 of the Act and therefore, there was no justifiable ground available to the appellants to argue that the amount paid at the initial stage was not duty and as such the provisions of Rules 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be attracted and the demand of duty ought to be made within the period of six months from the date of payment. Here is not the case, where there is a mis-calculation as to the rate of duty so as to avail the benefit of filing of the RT 12 return and as such the argument advanced by the ld. Sr. executive that because of the RT 12 returns were not finalised cannot hold as goods. In any case, the claim initially lodged beig one under Rule 173H, the fresh ground now urged cannot be entertained, and even if it is entertained the decision could not be in favour of the appellants, as going by that, the claim would be barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rules. In the circumstances, there appears to be no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
