1997 (3) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent. [Order]. - Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The appellants herein cleared certain goods viz. (1) super enamel aluminium wire; and (2) insulated aluminium rectangular conductor on 9-11-1993 to Manipur Electric Works Pvt. Ltd., Gaya. It, however, so happened that the consignee of the goods at Gaya did not take delivery of the goods because h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, however, rejected by the lower authorities only on the ground that the goods have not been returned by the consignee for repair/reprocessing or reconditioning. It is appropriate to reproduce the reasons given by the adjudicating authority for rejecting the refund claim of the appellants :- ... "Following the procedure under Rule 173L by them is of no use since the basic condition is not fulf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... long storage in the transporter's godown. It is for that reason, the goods had been brought back to the factory for reconditioning and then clearing on payment of duty. The reason given by the lower authorities for rejecting the refund claim is not correct. He has drawn attention to an earlier Order-in-Original by the same Assistant Collector under Order No. 6/Refund/92, dated 11-11-1992 wherein ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petent authorities. Therefore, reliance on an earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector is not a valid ground for rejecting the refund claim in this case in view of clear scope of Rule 173L. 4.1 I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides. Reading of Rule 173L does not bring the intention of the lower authorities which they have placed on that rule. Rule 173L is in the f....