AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.—Heard learned Counsel Mr. Dave for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Malkan for the respondents.
The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 22-12-2003 (Annexure-F) passed by the revisional authority partly dismissing their revision application and prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest thereon as prescribed u/s 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The petitioner had filed revision application before the revisional authority against the order in Appeal No. 101/2003 passed on 19-2-2003 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional authority rejected the claim of refund of Rs. 1,30,000/- of the petitioner having become time-barred. However, claim of refund of Rs. 30,800/- of the petitioner was accepted. Thus, revision application of the petitioner was partly allowed qua their claim of Rs. 30,800/- and the rest of the claim of refund of Rs. 1,30,000/- was dismissed.
From para, 7 of the impugned order, which is challenged in this petition by the petitioner, it is clear that goods were cleared for home consumption by the petitioner on 31-12-1997 on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,30,000/- and the same were brought back for reconditioning under Rule 173H on 5-1-1998 and again the said goods were cleared to exhibition held at Mumbai on 19-11-1998 and again brought back on 16-12-1998 under Rule 173H. Under the circumstances, having cleared the goods for home consumption on payment of duty and having enjoyed the facility of bringing back duty paid goods under Rule 173H the petitioner cannot claim that all those provisions will cease to operate once goods have been cleared for export at a subsequent date. In this case, admittedly, the duty of refund of Rs. 1,30,000/- was paid way back on 31-12-1997 at the time of clearance of home consumption and not at the time of export on 17-9-1999. It is also not in dispute that the duty of Rs. 30,800/- was paid at the time of export.
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the revisional authority has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund of Rs. 1,30,000/- as time-barred.
In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.