2015 (9) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. Commr(A)/13/VDR-I/2004 dated 23.01.2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara as first appellate authority. Under this OIA dated 23.01.2004 first appellate authority has rejected the claim of the appellant by holding that Revisonery Authority has remanded the rebate claim of the appellant to be considered as a refund claim u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epacked for final export by the appellant. It is the case of the learned advocate that Rule 173 L refund claim has to be filed only by the re-manufacture of the goods returned and not by the merchant exporter. It was his case that their case was rebate of duty claimed by the merchant exporter who is not the manufacture of goods. He relied upon the case law of Banglore CESTAT Sun-Ship Ltd. vs Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot concerned as to what activities are undertaken by TGBL. Appellant will be interested to get rebate claim of the duty paid on 20.09.1997 before the returned goods were allowed to be cleared under Rule 173 H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, on the documents relating to export of goods. Rule 173 L of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be followed only by the manufacture/re-man .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X