1997 (1) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of verification of the particular goods, has given his remarks on all the D-3 applications that `the goods cannot be verified as the same are not identifiable, no identification marks have been given on GP-I'. Since the appellants were not satisfied with the decision of the Sector Officer it was open to them to prefer an appeal before the competent authority. This has not been done so and verification of the particulars of the goods being a mandatory proviso (ii) to Rule 173L. I feel the appellants have forfeited their right to claim any refund under the said Rule. In view of the above, I do not find there is anything wrong in the order passed by the Asstt. Collector which is perfect in the eyes of law and is therefore, confirmed." 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the D-3 intimations submitted to the deptt. The ld. Counsel submits that the month of manufacture is recorded on the wrapper of each soap together with weight etc. He submits that the deptt. has not disclosed as to what other identifying particulars were required so that the same could be furnished. He submits that on seeing the remark of the inspecting officer, the appellants submitted a request to the Supdt. of the Range requesting him to reverify the goods. He submitted that no action was taken on the request made to the Supdt. of Central Excise. The ld. Counsel also submitted that there was internal correspondence exchanged between the Central Depot and the factory; that certain quantities of 'Hamam' soap had deteriorated and needed re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthorities have rightly rejected the refund claim u/s 173L of the Central Excise Rules. 6.  Heard the submissions of both sides. We have seen the D-3 intimation furnishing the particulars of the product as also the remarks of the inspecting officer. We have also seen the relevant GP-I showing the particulars of the product. We find that no doubt there are remarks recorded by the inspecting officer saying that the identity of the goods could not be established as the same as were cleared under the relevant GP-I. We find that these remarks do not bring out anything inasmuch as the identifying particulars, if any, were recorded in the GP-I, the same particulars were incorporated in the D-3 intimation. There is nothing brought out in th....