(1.) THE appellants manufactured EPABX system according to the specifications of their customer, viz., M/s. Ranjita Enterprises and cleared the same to the said customers on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 90,619.13 under invoice dated 21 -3 -1997. M/s. Ranjita Enterprises who had ordered for supply of the said goods for the purpose of certain project, informed the appellants by letter dated 14 -7 -1997 that on account of cancellation of project, they were returning the goods to the appellants. The appellants on receipt of the returned goods cleared the same on payment of duty of Rs. 1,47383.94 under invoice dated 26 -12 -1997, after necessary modification (reconditioning of the goods in accordance with the specifications of the new customer). Such clearance was done by the appellants after D. 3 intimation to the Central Excise authorities under Rule 173 -L of the Central Excise Rules. The party filed refund claim for the amount of duty originally paid amounting to Rs. 90,619.13, with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Rule 173 -L. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the goods cleared originally on payment of duty of Rs. 90,619.13 had not been returned for purposes of remaking, refining, reconditioning etc. envisaged under Rule 173 -L but, in fact, had been returned by their customers on account of cancellation of the project. According to the Assistant Commissioner, the goods so returned did not fall within the ambit of Rule 173 -L and therefore, the appellants were not entitled to refund of the duty originally paid on the goods. The appeal filed by the party against the Assistant Commissioner's order was rejected by the lower appellate authority as per order dated 24 -9 -99. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.
(2.) I have carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and connected records. I have also heard learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Anand for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned JDR for the respondent/Revenue.
(3.) THE appellants' case is that the EPABX system was originally manufactured by them according to the specifications of their customer ai.d was cleared to them on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 90,619.13. This fact is not disputed. The customer returned the goods to the appellants and the latter cleared the goods after necessary modification/reconditioning in accordance with the specifications of another customer and cleared the same to such customer on payment of appropriate duty. This fact is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the subsequent clearance of the reconditioned goods to the new customer was done by the appellants under D.3 intimation to the proper Central Excise authority in accordance with the provisions of Rule 173 -L. The only ground stated by the lower authorities for rejecting the appellants refund claim for Rs. 90/619.13 is that the appellants could not establish that the goods were received back from the original customers for being re -made, reconditioned etc. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to refund of the duty originally paid on the goods, under Rule 173 -L. The learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that this question of eligibility of the appellants to the refund under Rule 173 -L stands decided in favour of the party by a decision of the Tribunal on a similar set of facts in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Taylor Instrument Company (I) Limited 1999 (109) E.L.T. 517 (Tribunal).