Full Judgment
2. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava/ learned DR submitted that the respondents have removed the consignment of computer hardware supplied to the State Bank of India on payment of duty. These computers were brought back to the factory under Rule 173L as there was some calculation errors in the documents. Shri Srivastava submitted that the goods can be brought back into the factory only for the purpose of repairing, reconditioning or reprocessing and not for the purpose of correcting the errors in the documents, as this process is not covered by Rule 173L. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and allowing the refund to the respondents.
3. Shri H.N. Mathur, Manager Excise of the respondents submitted that there was no other procedure available to them for correcting the invoices for the purpose of duty. All the goods which were brought back were verified by the Inspector of Central Excise. He further mentioned that in any case, the duty has been paid by them twice on the same goods which is not in dispute.
4. We have considered the submissions of both sides. No doubt, the correction of the documents is not covered by the facility provided under Rule 173L. The respondents should have followed the procedure either under Rule 173H or Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules for bringing the duty paid goods into the factory. However, we observe that it has not been disputed by the Revenue that duty has been paid twice on the same goods. It has been held in the case of Rubber Industries (India) v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T 116 that payment of duty again on the same goods is an erroneous payment and if a refund claim has been filed within the limit laid down under Section 11B, the refund claim is to be considered under Section 11B, as the payment of duty twice is not in dispute. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.