9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is a manufacturer of cylinder head gaskets. They cleared 4800 cylinder heads to M/s. Tata Engineering and Loco Ltd., (TELCO), Pune under 12 invoices dated 29-9-2000 to 18-10-2000. The buyer rejected the goods. Therefore, they were brought back to the factory and D-3 declaration was filed on 23-1-2001. That declaration refers to Rule 173L. The receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- was paid again i.e. Rs. 6/- more than the original duty paid which was being claimed as refund. 2. The impugned order rejected the refund application on the ground that the appellant's case did not come within Rule 173L. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted that goods for captive consumption were eligible for exemption under Notification. 3. The contention of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her processes - straightening, cleaning etc. - also had been undertaken. Learned Consultant emphasized that in any event, demand of duty twice on the same goods is not permissible. He has also submitted that the exemption in favour of captively consumed goods is no ground for denying refund claim inasmuch as it is settled that it is for the assessee either to avail exemption or to pay duty in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H provides for the bringing into a factory of duty paid goods (accompanied by duty paying documents) and clearing them after reconditioning, repairing, remaking etc. Between these two Rules, the law provides for reconditioning and remaking duty paid goods. In either case, double payment of duty is not permissible. The only requirement under Rule 173L is that the amount of refund shall, in no case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
