2009 (4) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority rejecting the claim for refund an amount of Rs. 4,63,783/- claimed by the appellants under Rule 173L of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 (CER). The facts of the case are that ....

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 held the same view that the claim for refund was not admissible for non-compliance with Rule 173L as regards time prescribed for receipt back of the goods cleared on payment of duty. 2. Before the Tribunal the appellants have taken ground that the request for condonation of delay in receipt of the goods was made in reply to the Show Cause Notice proposing to reject the clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that their request for considering the D-3 intimation as under Rule 173L implied a request for extension of time for receipt that of the goods, we find, cannot be countenanced. In the entire proceedings before the authorities, we do not find any request for extension of time to bring the goods returned under cover of provisions under Rule 173L of CER. We find that the case law cited by ld. Counse....