2007 (4) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p;Heard ld. JDR. The respondents are absent. 2. The issue relates to refund claim. The respondent assessee have cleared Power Steering Cylinder to the customers on payment of duty but the same were returned back as they were no longer required by their customers. D-3 intimation in the matter was also filed. After testing, the goods were sold to different customers again on payment of duty. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned and there is no dispute regarding payment of duty for second time. The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims on the ground that the appellants failed to follow the procedures laid down in Rule 173L(1)(iii) and 173L(2). The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon in the case of CCE, Indore v. Medi Caps Ltd. - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 469 (Tri.-Del.) which speaks that the purpose of Rule 173 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ablished, the refund claim under Rule 173L is not deniable. In the present case also the respondent assessee had established the fact that they have paid duty at the time of first clearance and again on return of goods, they were cleared once again on payment of duty on 2nd occasion. The same goods cannot be charged twice with the duty element. Therefore, refund of one of the duty paid is permissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X