1991 (8) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whereupon a D-3 declaration was filed by the appellants for receiving the goods back for being remade, repaired or reconditioned under the provisions of Rule 173H. Re-entry of the goods, as per D-3 declaration, has been made on 28-8-1984 (after a period of one year). However, the goods, have been cleared on payment of duty without any such processes being done by the appellants and this removal was to another customer. This has been cleared second time on payment of duty under G.P. No. 1299, dated 22-10-1984. The appellants claimed refund of duty in respect of the payment made under G.P. No. 1299, dated 22-10-1984, by filing a refund claim on 23-1-1988 on the ground that the same goods have suffered duty twice and hence second payment is t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....prescribed under Section 11B; (iii) They are not seeking for refund under Rule 173L, of the Central Excise Rules. Their claim is only in terms of Sec. 11B in respect of the double payment of duty on the same goods. 4. After hearing Shri Singh, though I find that the arguments of the ld. advocate look attractive, there are certain legal aspects which are required to be looked into. Section 11B of the Central Excises Act covers refund of any duty of excise. It includes not only duty paid by mistake or otherwise disputed as also duty paid on goods exported, goods returned for being remade, reconditioning etc. Provisions are also made accordingly in that Section itself for reckoning the relevant dates, from which six months limitation is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons of Rule 173L and read Sec. 11B in isolation, especially when Section 11B itself seeks to include cases of refund involved in re-entered goods. When this refund is so considered, it is obvious that the appellants had brought the goods after more than 1 year contrary to the provisions of Rule 173L and the purposes of bringing in the duty paid goods has not been satisfied as per Rule 173H or Rule 173L. The authorities could not have therefore considered the claim on merits under Section 11B. It is not the question of time bar alone that is relevant under Section 11B but also the sustainability of their claim on merits in the context of the legal provisions applicable to such re-entered goods. The Asstt. Collector has not held it as time ba....