TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant for receiving the duty paid goods back and removing them after reconditioning or repairing would not amount to discharge of duty liability when the goods are cleared after reconditioning. Since duty liability on the goods exported was discharged and the refund claim was filed beyond six months, provision of Section 11B gets attracted and refund claim has to be held as hit by limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alers; few scooters were returned back for reconditioning/repairing; during the period in question i.e. July, 1995 to January, 1996 there was a requirement of filing D3. intimation of the returned goods which appellant did so and after reconditioning, exported the same under bond without payment of duty by document AR-4, dated 6-10-1995. On export, appellant filed an application on 23-1-1996 for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the lower authorities. 7. On perusal of the records, we find that the refund claim filed by the appellant is undisputedly beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty which was initially cleared for home consumption to their dealers. The provisions of Rule 173H which are followed by the appellant for receiving the duty paid goods back and removing them after recondition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
