TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after reprocessing carried out by them, the goods were transferred to RG I account for clearance on payment of duty or for export under Bond; that they had filed refund claims in respect of Central Excise duty; that the Revenue has rejected their refund claims on the ground that the scooters after reprocessing were exported under bond and as no duty was paid, they were not eligible for refund of duty; that some of the refund claims have also been rejected on the ground that D-3 intimation was filed late by them; that refund claim has also been rejected on the ground of limitation. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the refund claim has been filed by them within time limit as specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Metazinc (India) Ltd. - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 402 (Tri.) wherein it has been held that Rule 173L does not contemplate a situation that the reprocessed goods were actually cleared on payment of duty and the restriction placed under the provision (iv) under Rule 173L(1) is only in respect of the duty 'payable' on such goods after being reprocessed and not to duty 'paid'. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Rajasthan Spg. Wvg. Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II [2001 (134) E.L.T. 441 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 411 (CEGAT)] wherein it has been held that the refund is admissible even when the reprocessed goods are cleared without payment of duty and refund is to be restric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of proviso (iv) to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 173L which provides that the amount of refund payable shall in no case be in excess of the duty payable on such goods after being remade, etc. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We agree with the learned Advocate that the refund claim filed by them, on 25-2-99 in respect of the goods, which were received back on 25-8-99, is not hit by time limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act as the refund claim has been filed within six months of the receipt of the goods. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. that the proper procedure would be to exclude the relevant date and start the period of limitation of six months from the following day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has to be shown by the Appellants that the amount of refund claimed by them is not in excess of the duty payable on the goods after reprocessing. For examining this aspect, the matter is to go back to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the amount of duty payable at the time of removal of the goods for export under Bond. The refund will be subject to the amount of duty payable on the reprocessed goods. Similarly, in respect of the goods which have not been removed after being reprocessed the refund can be sanctioned only if the goods either have been removed on payment of duty or removed for export under Bond. The question of refund arises only when the duty is paid twice. The Appellants are entitled to file the refund claim even if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
