2004 (5) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Rancher Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellants was dismissed. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of machines and cleared one machine on payment of duty. Due to some problem regarding the payment of price....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d claim be considered under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as they erroneously paid duty. This claim was also rejected by the lower authority on the ground of limitation. 4. The contention of the appellants is that as they initially filed refund claim under Rule 173L of the Rules which were within a period of limitation, therefore, now Revenue cannot reject t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Their claim under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules is to be considered and the manufacturer need not to pay the duty second time subject to the conditions imposed under this Rule. Appellants claimed the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on 6-10-1999 whereas duty was paid on 1-9-1998. 5. In this case the refund claim filed by the appellants under Rule 173L is rejected ....