1990 (3) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for refund of duty paid on Dust Tea under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
- Interpretation of the term "re-making" under Rule 173L.
- Determination of whether the goods processed fall under the same class as per Rule 173L.

Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Refund: The appeal concerned the eligibility of the appellants for a refund of duty paid on Dust Tea under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants sought a refund based on the argument that Dust Tea was being re-made into CTC tea in another unit of their factory. The dispute revolved around whether the process undertaken by the appellants qualified for the refund under Rule 173L.

2. Interpretation of "Re-making": The appellants argued that the process of converting Dust Tea into CTC tea constituted "re-making" under Rule 173L. The term "re-make" was analyzed in the context of transformation or revision of goods. The Tribunal observed that the process of transforming Dust Tea into CTC tea through mixing with other ingredients fell within the ambit of "re-making" as defined in the dictionaries cited.

3. Classification of Goods: The central issue was whether the processed goods belonged to the same class as required by Rule 173L. The Tribunal examined the definition of "class" in various dictionaries and previous case laws to determine the scope of the term. It was established that the Tea Tariff did not distinguish between orthodox tea and CTC tea, considering both as "tea" under the same class. Citing precedents related to biscuits and cigarettes, the Tribunal concluded that the re-made goods, though of a different variety, belonged to the same class as per Rule 173L.

4. Decision: Based on the interpretation of "re-making" and the classification of goods, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Rule 173L and thus eligible for the refund of duty paid on Dust Tea. The decision emphasized that the re-made goods, despite being a different variety, fell under the same class, satisfying the requirements of the rule. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, subject to fulfilling other conditions specified in Rule 173L regarding maintaining detailed accounts and processes.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of eligibility for refund, interpretation of terms under Rule 173L, and the classification of goods, leading to the final decision in favor of the appellants based on the Tribunal's interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions and precedents.