ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee whereunder the Collector (Appeals) has rejected the claim of the refund of duty made by the assessee on the ground of limitation.
2. The appellants removed and cleared stainless steel wires falling under heading 7223.00 for export to Singapore and they claimed rebate on payment of duty of Rs. 31,173. The consignment was purportedly rejected by the Customer and brought back to the factory for further process. Admittedly the goods were manufactured on 16.6.1990 and they were brought back some time on 6th September, 1990. They claimed refund of duty paid by it. A.C. passed Order dated 27.1.1992 allowing the refund claim. However, Collector (Appeals) held that the claim was barred by limitation since the refund claim was filed on 26.12.1990 after six months from the date of payment of duty. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Shri Patankar, Ld. counsel for the appellant that purpose of refund under Rule 173-M(2) the time should be reckoned not from the date of payment of duty but the date of return of goods from the factory. Here, admittedly the goods have been returned on 6th September, 1990 and refund application has been filed on 26.12.1990. It is within the time.
4. The Ld. DR adopts the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals).
5. I have considered the submissions. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 173-M provides that no refund shall be paid until the process mentioned in sub-Rule (1) has been completed and an account under clause (iv) of that sub-Rule has been rendered to the satisfaction of the Collector within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. Admittedly the goods have been returned on 6th September, 1990. Hence, I am of the view, the Collector has erred in reckoning the time from payment of duty. The impugned order is set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector is restored. However, the Assistant Collector should examine the case in the light of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. CCE .
6. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.