Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Nestle India Ltd. on 26 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(81)ECC706, 2002(144)ELT115(TRI-BANG)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. Issue relates to refund claim. Refund claim has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the duty has been paid twice on the same goods, even though on records it is clear that some goods have been received back into the factory by the assessee, it is not clear that the goods on which the refund is claimed are the same which are received back into the factory.
2. This position has been analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 4 of the Order-in-Appeal which reads as under :
"....... From the submissions made by the appellants, it is observed that the appellants in fact had cleared some consignments initially on payment of duty and subsequently when this consignment was rejected by the buyers they brought these rejected consignments back into the factory and submitted the relevant D-3 declaration. Subsequently, after re-processing, those goods have been cleared again on payment of duty. Thus from the above it can easily be seen that the appellants have followed the proper procedure as required under the law and have also proved that the goods on which they had initially paid duty were brought back into the factory for repair and re-processing and have cleared these goods on payment of duty. The Appellants are rightly eligible to avail refund. The order passed by the lower authority in rejecting the refund claim of the appellant is therefore not correct."
3. Since issue has been properly analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals), I am not inclined to interfere with the order. In the result, appeal is dismissed.