TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, praying that in the circumstances stated therein the Tribunal will be pleased to order refund of ₹ 1,09,600/- being Central Excise duty paid on the goods twice. 2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri B. Ramesh, Advocate, for the appellants and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Rules, 1944, the Assistant Collector rejected the appellants claim for refund. The Appellate Collector also upheld the order of the lower authority and rejected the appeal. 4. The relevant facts of the case are that a Haulpak Dumper was cleared by the appellants from the factory of manufacture on 11-7-1975 after payment of duty assessed at the rate of 1% ad valorem under Item 68 of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second occasion the goods were not liable to pay any duty of excise at all. The claim has been rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore East Division observing : if the said equipment has been brought back and cleared for home consumption and there is no provision by which such clearance can be made without payment of duty, duty is payable on second removal under Rule 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion without payment of duty. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that the excisability of goods arose in July 1975 when they were cleared from the factory for the first time; the fact of their return to the factory with or without the approval of the departmental authorities and with or without the observance of formalities that could have been prescribed does not make any differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
