1. Appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to condone the lapse of not filing the intimat'ion in the proof form and order refund of duty paid by the appellant.
2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri K. Saravanai, Advocate for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri. A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order.
3. The appellant filed a revision application before the Government of India against the order-in-appeal No. 198/80 dated 29-5rl980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad which stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35P of the Act.
4. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajahmundry by his order C, No. V/17/18/11/79 M.P. 1 dated 16-11-1979, rejected a claim for refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Cental Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of 17785.60 kgs. of M.F. White Pulp Board which had been supplied to M/s. Suncoated Paper Company, which was returned to the factory of the appellant for re-pulping, on the score that intimation of re-entry of the goods was not given in the proper form i.e., D. 3.
On appeal the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad confirmed this view.
5. Before us it is urged that intimation regarding arrival of the packages of the paper board was in fact given within 24 hours by means of letter No. O/pg/78-79/426 dated 7-9-78 from the appellant to the Superintendent of Central Excise, M.O.R. III, Rajahmundry. We have seen a photostat copy of tins letter and note that (the statement enclosed to) it contains amongst other things the description of the goods, the lot number under which the goods were cleared, weight, packages, the challan No. under which duty was paid and the gate pass number. We note that this is ordinarily the data that is required to be given in the prescribed form namely, D. 3. The short point for consideration is whether the appellant has in fact given due intimation, as required under proviso (ii) to Rule 173L. This proviso reads : - (ii) the assessee gives information of the re-entry of each consignment of such excisable goods into the factory to the proper officer in writing in the proper form within twenty-four hours of such re-entry to enable the proper officer to verify the particulars of such goods within forty-eight hours of receipt of information." The Rule requires intimation to be given within a specified time; the purpose of such intimation is also stated in the Rule itself, namely, to verify the particulars of the goods received in the factory with the original duty paying documents and such identification as is possible in respect of the returned goods. We note that in the present case, though the communication was not in the standard form -D. 3-the information that ought to have been givtn in a D. 3 form is contained in the letter itself. The primary purpose of the Rul is, therefore, achieved by the information given by the appellant in his letter dated 7-9-78. We, therefore, find that in keeping with the general objective of the Rule, intimation has in fact been given as required thereunder.
In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and order refund of the duty of Rs 22,569.93, as claimed by the appellant.