TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the returned goods were lying in the factory. 2. The refund claim was rejected by the proper officer and on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the order of the lower authority. In the mean time the Appellants claimed to have cleared the returned goods, after reprocessing, under 9 invoices and the Appellants pleaded before the CESTAT that they are eligible for the refund of duty paid for the second time. The CESTAT vide order dated 23-6-2004 remanded the case back to the original authority. The Tribunal observed that "the Appellant brought back duty paid goods, after giving D-3 intimation and after reprocessing the same, cleared on payment of duty presuming that the case is covered under Rule 173L. The Department instead inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....processing the goods could be granted by the Commissioner. This direction was dated 4-11-1997 and they had once again submitted a letter to the Chief Commissioner on 28-12-07 requesting that relaxation was required by them under Rule 173L and not under Rule 173H. He submits that duty has been paid twice on the same components and therefore they are eligible for the refund. The Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with the issue in detail and therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) need not to be interfered with. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the directions of the Tribunal were very clear. The Commissioner (Appeals) was required to verify whethe....