TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is in respect of quantum of refund, under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944, in respect of goods which were earlier cleared on payment of duty and, thereafter, received in the factory of the manufacturer and the same were cleared after re-processing/re-conditioning at Nil rate of duty under the exemption notification. 2. We find that the issue in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Metazinc (India) Ltd., reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal) was in respect of the duty paid goods received in the factory of manufacturer for re-processing and, thereafter, the goods were cleared for export under AR-3. In this situation the Tribunal allowed the refund under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Orient Paper Mills Limited v. Deputy Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise and Others, reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 247 (Del.). The appeal filed by the Orient Paper Mills Limited against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme, reported as Orient Paper Mills v. Deputy Director of Inspection, Cus. Central Excise, reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 15 (S.C.). 6. The issue before us is regarding the scope of proviso (iv) to Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. For Ready reference the Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules is reproduced below : "Rule 173L Provided that - (i) xxxxxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxxxx (iv) the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the above decision we hold that the expression "payable" in proviso (iv) to Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 means that the duty actually paid. Therefore, we find no force in the arguments of the assessee. Hence we find that the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-IV v. Fort William Co. Ltd., reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 620 (Tri. - Kolkata) is a correct view. The reference made to the Larger Bench is answered in above terms. 8. No other issue is involved in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 9. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner followed the decision of Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
