ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of plastic cabinets of television sets. some of these articles after clearance following payment of duty were rejected by its customers as being defective and returned. The appellant melted these down in its factory and remade the cabinets, which were cleared on payment of duty. Three claims filed for refund under Rule 173L of the duty initially paid were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it had not been shown to his satisfaction as provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of this rule that the value of the goods at the time of return was not less than the duty originally paid by it and such rejection was confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.
2. Mr. R.N. Kunder, an employee of the appellant initially sought adjournment on the ground that its counsel was out of town. Noting that there is no vakalat nama filed engaging the counsel, the request for adjournment was declined. He thereupon made his submissions. The submission of Mr. Kunder are essentially that duty having been paid on the goods initially, it is not required to be paid second time. I am unable to accept this submission Excise duty is on manufacture. Each time a commodity is manufactured, duty has to be paid. The provisions of Rule 173L are in the nature of an exception to this general principle providing for refund subject to the conditions contained in that rule of the duty initially paid on these goods which, after their return, are remade, refined, reconditioned or subjected to any similar process. One of these conditions is the one that we are concerned with, that the value of the goods is not less than the amount of duty paid on it at the time of clearance. For the manufacturer to be entitled to the benefit of the exception to the general rule contained in Rule 173L, he has to satisfy this requirement.
3. The appeal relies upon a number of decisions which relate to goods which have been returned to the factory after clearance. Many of these decisions are irrelevant. Some of them relate to the issue and appears to express the view that failure to comply with procedural conditions is no ground for denial of refund. The condition we are concerned with however is not procedure. It is a substantive condition having relation to the value of the goods which have suffered duty. None of the said decisions relates to this aspect. The dismissal of the claim has therefore to be confirmed. Therefore, I have not considered it necessary to examine applicability of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act or not.
4. Appeal dismissed.