2004 (2) TMI 523

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emsp;As regards the appeal E/3663/01-Mum. is concerned, the facts are as under :- The appellants brought back to their factory certain finished goods which were previously cleared from their factory on payment of duty. It is an admitted position that, the duty which was initially paid was under provisional assessment basis. The appellants filed necessary intimations in Form D-3, which were verified by the concerned Central Excise officers in charge of the factory. It is admitted that the sheets in coil form were subjected to cutting to obtain cut lengths, which did not amount to manufacture. It is also admitted fact that no duty was required to be paid on the subsequent removals as the goods could be identified with those cleared previou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d provision (Explanation) the time-limit for claiming refund, in respect of payments under provisional assessment, starts from the date of final assessment. The appeals from the Revenue contests this finding, especially the retrospectivity aspect. 5. I have examined the rival contentions. In the order-in-original, the claims were rejected on two grounds, one of which was limitation while the other ground was that the goods have been brought back in contravention of Rule 173H. It is also stated that, the rejected goods could be brought back to the factory, only after obtaining the permission of the Chief Commissioner. It is further stated that, it was not clear as to whether the return of goods was under Rule 173H or 173L and the D3 ....