Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L could be denied for delayed filing of D-3 intimation when the goods were kept separately and the revenue was informed, and whether the rule required clearance of the re-made goods within six months from the date of receipt of the returned goods.
Analysis: The refund claim was founded on Rule 173L. The delay in filing D-3 intimation was explained by late receipt of rejection documents, and the goods were separately stored with intimation to the revenue so that verification could be undertaken. The objection on this ground was also not part of the show cause notice, and denial of refund on that basis would therefore travel beyond the notice. On the second objection, the rule only requires that the goods be remade within six months; it does not require their clearance within that period. Since there was no dispute that the goods were later cleared on payment of higher duty, the condition relied upon for rejection was unsustainable.
Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected on either ground, and the benefit under Rule 173L was available.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the refund grant failed, and the assessee's refund entitlement was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Relief under Rule 173L cannot be denied for a procedural lapse not alleged in the show cause notice, and the rule does not require clearance of remade goods within six months if remaking is completed within that period.