2014 (4) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....GEMENT The appellant filed this appeal against rejection of the refund claim of Rs.12,64,800/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of 'Static Converter known as Uninterrupted Power Supply System (UPSS)' classifiable under sub-heading 85044090 of the CETA, 1985. They av....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the credit in December 2005 and filed a refund claim on 28.12.2005. He submits that both the authorities below rejected the refund claim merely on technical ground. It is revealed from the document that the goods are not manufactured by them which is mere a trading item and refund cannot be denied. He further submits that if it is manufactured goods, they are eligible for refund of duty under Noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....goods. It is contended that the goods are not trading goods and therefore both the authorities rightly rejected the refund claim. She further submits that the appellant had not claimed exemption benefit before the lower authorities. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellant claimed that the goods in dispute were imported by them. But the authorities be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned counsel fairly submits that they have produced the Project Import Certificate which was not properly dealt by the adjudicating authority. In my considered view, if the Department is treating the impugned goods as manufactured goods, the claim of exemption should be examined by the lower authority in the light of the exemption notifications. 5. The Tribunal in the case of Sonic Band Inte....