1998 (4) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lathes cleared on payment of duty were rejected and returned by the respective customers. Necessary D 3s were filed on receipt of the goods into the factory. Both the CNC lathes were subsequently repaired and cleared on payment of duty resulting in double payment of central excise duty. Hence they filed refund claims. While rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,94,650/-, the Assistant Collector observed that the description of the lathe varied on the clearance documents (i.e. the original invoice vis-a-vis the delivery challan issued for the second clearance), no mention regarding reprocessed/repaired goods was made in the invoice issued, no proof was produced to establish that Modvat credit was not availed on the original (First clearance) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal). He also relies on a judgment rendered in the case of Samtel India Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 596. It has also been decided on a similar facts in party's favour. He further relied in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 66 (Tribunal). He further relies on judgment rendered in the case of Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 580 (Tribunal) and also judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Senapathy Whitelay Ltd. as reported in 1994 (69) E.L.T. 768 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held "It is observed that so far as the intimation to the Department is concerned, the same is required to be given within 24 hours. There is delay of a few .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... should not be over-emphasised to deny otherwise eligible dues. In view of this ruling the denial of refund of Rs. 1,94,650/- is required to be set aside. 7. As regards the refund claim of Rs. 70,000/- rejection was also on the ground that the Form V Register was not completed. On this aspect also the Form V Register pertaining to this refund also shows endorsement from the Inspector as "verified and found correct". It follows that the there has been application of mind by the Inspector to the processes carried out by them. Therefore the judgments of the Tribunal to consider this as a procedural violation is required to be accepted. In the case of Samtel India Ltd., it has been noted that maintaining accounts in Form V is to facilitat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X