TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses appeal for duty refund due to non-compliance with Rule 173-L</h1> The Tribunal upheld the decision rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 67,620 by M/s. Imperial Auto Industries, emphasizing compliance with Rule 173-L of the ... Refund - Returned goods Issues:Refund claim of Central Excise duty rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) - Compliance with Rule 173-L of Central Excise Rules - Entitlement to refund for paying duty twice on same goods.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal confirming the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 67,620 by M/s. Imperial Auto Industries. The appellants cleared fuel injection tube assembly, paid duty, but later received the goods back as rejected, claiming refund for paying duty twice. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim.The appellants argued they paid duty twice on the same goods and relied on the case of Perfact Industrial Corp. v. CCE. However, the Tribunal found the ground of the appellants to be misconceived. Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rule outlines the procedure for claiming refund of duty paid twice. The rule mandates maintaining detailed accounts of refunded goods, the process after return to the factory, and providing requisite details to the Collector within six months, which the appellants failed to comply with.The appellants did not store the goods separately, failed to furnish details to the Collector within the specified period, and lacked evidence of the process carried out on the goods. Discrepancies in the description and dispatch date of reprocessed goods further weakened their case. The Commissioner (Appeals) provided detailed reasons for disallowing the refund claim, finding no merit in the appeal based on the facts and circumstances presented. The Tribunal concluded that the law cited by the appellants was not applicable to their case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decision rejecting the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of complying with Rule 173-L for claiming duty refund on goods paid twice. The appellants' failure to meet the procedural requirements and discrepancies in their submissions led to the dismissal of their appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
