9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed before him by them wherein they had challenged the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rourkela Division whereby he had rejected their refund claims filed under Rule 173L in respect of returned consignments of refractory materials. The Collector had upheld the Assistant Collector's orders, as according to him, Rule 173L envisages reprocessing/remaking with the help of the returned goods alone whereas the appellants were reprocessing such returned goods together with fresh materials for manufacture of bricks/mortars. 2. When the appeals came up for hearing, Shri D.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Consultant appeared on their behalf along with Shri J.N. Pandey, their Liaison Officer. Shri Pandey stated that subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he West Regional Bench of the Tribunal in Sarabhai Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 62 and stated that this would also support their case. He emphasised the fact that the Rule 173L nowhere lays down that the returned goods should be used alone for reprocessing and the finding of the Collector (Appeals) to the contrary is opposed to the provisions of the said Rule. He also stressed that they had carried out the remanufacturing process, duly observing the requirments laid down in Rule 173L. He pleaded that their appeals may be allowed. 3. The arguments were resisted by Shri A. Choudhury, learned J.D.R. He stated that this Rule covers remanufacture of the returned goods. Here, what has been done is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us did not come to the fore in the said decision of the Tribunal. However, the question of producing mortar from returned bricks did come up and the Tribunal held, this does not disentitle the appellants of the benefit under Rule 173L. The Collector (Appeals) did not, however, follow this decision. 5. The other appeal decided by this Bench under Order No. 498/Calcutta/86/7084 dated 18-11-1986 which is an unreported decision related to refund on returned goods under Rule 173L which had been rejected at the original stage by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the conditions prescribed under Rule 173L were not fulfilled. It was held, however, by the Collector (Appeals) while allowing their appeal that the conditions had actually b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us cases for the manufacture of mortar but such a step had not been done by them in any of the fifteen cases presently under appeal. To that extent the finding of the Collector (Appeals) is not factually correct, pleaded Shri Pande. Reliance has also been placed by the appellants on the decisions of the Government of India in regard to the remanufacture of biscuits of a variety different from the returned one [Brittania Biscuits Co. Ltd. - 1980 E.L.T. 649] and remanufacture of different brand of cigarettes from the returned one [Godfrey Philips India Ltd. -1982 E.L.T. 495]. The appellants have also referred to a clarification given by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under F. No. 261/23A/2/78-CX dated 21-2-1980. We have perused this cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
