TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur (Appeal No. 471/83) are against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 1-9-1983 in C. No. V/68/178/83 which itself is with reference to the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Eluru, in C. No. V/68/18-4-1983 MP.l, dated 10-5-1983. The Company claimed a refund of ₹ 25,375.24 being the duty paid on three consignments of Hydrogenated hardened rice bran oil of 31.415 MTS. removed under Gate Passes Nos. 129/17-10-82, 130/18-10-82 and 131/18-10-82 to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Calcutta. It was stated that the said three consignments were rejected by the consignee due to MIV (moisture, impurity and volatile matter) and were brought back to the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of Gate Pass No. 129/17-10-82 was not received within 24 hours of the arrival of the consignment at the factory. In view of the clear provisions of Rule 173L(ii) he found that refund in respect of this part of the goods was not admissible. In so far as shortage was concerned, he decided that the Rule does not contemplate that an identical quantity must emerge after reprocessing to qualify for refund. Thus, he allowed the appeal to him in respect of Gate Passes Nos. 130 and 131 but rejected the same in respect of Gate Pass No. 129. In respect of the claim admitted by the Collector (Appeals), the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, has come up in appeal before the Tribunal in appeal No. 471/83 and in respect of the claim disallowed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignor. Here, the consignee, viz. Hindustan Lever Ltd., rejected the goods which came back to the Company, the consignor, and the Company obviously accepted the goods which were rejected and took them up for re-making etc. Thus, the sense of duality referred to by the Senior Departmental Representative is very much there in the present transaction. The submission that after reprocessing the goods must go back to the original consignee is not warranted by the wording of Rule 173L. In this view of the matter, we agree with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the provision of Rule 173(1) would apply to all the three consignments in question. 6. The other point raised on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise is that no refund is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods has to be given within 24 hours of such re-entry. However, the object of the intimation is indicated in the Rule itself, viz. to enable the proper officer to verify the particulars of such goods within 48 hours of receipt of the information. We note that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act provides that in any Central Act or Regulation, any act is directed to be done within a prescribed period and if the office is closed on that day or the last lay of the prescribed period, the act shall be considered as done in due time if it is done on the next day afterwards on which the office is open. We are aware that it has been held the provisions of the General Clauses Act are not applicable to rules made under an Act but only to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
