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 the refund claim was liable to be rejected merely because the assessee mentioned Rule 173L instead of Rule 173H, and whether the process carried out on returned goods justified denial of the benefit of Rule 173H.
Analysis: The duty-paid goods had been returned to the factory after proper D-3 intimation under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the department had checked and accepted the intimations. The mention of Rule 173L in the refund application was an apparent mistake, since the surrounding record showed that the goods were received back and dealt with under Rule 173H. No factual foundation existed for the appellate finding that the process undertaken on the returned goods took the matter outside Rule 173H by amounting to manufacture.
Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to relief. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the refund to be worked out subject to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be denied on a mere clerical or apparent error in citing the wrong rule where the record shows substantive compliance with the applicable procedure and there is no proved basis to exclude the transaction from that procedure.