9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Asansol Division, rejecting their refund claims, filed by them under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. The refund claims had been filed by them under the abovesaid Rule in respect of their certain rejected excisable goods returned to them for remanufacture. The Assistant Collector held that the conditions stipulated in the above cited Rule had not been observed by them and accordingly he rejected the claims. As their appeals to Collector (Appeals) did not succeed, they have filed the present appeals. 2. Shri K.P. Dey, learned Counsel and Shri Prabir Ghosh, Sr. Manager (Production) appeared for the hearing. Shri Dey handed over a copy of the order dated 3-9-82/14-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of these decisions which he submitted, covered similar situations, the appeals may be allowed. 3. Heard Shri A. Choudhury, learned Departmental Representative on behalf of the respondent Collector. He supported the impugned order. He particularly referred to the finding that the requirements of Rule 173L were not fulfilled, which fully justified the impugned decision. He pleaded that the appeals may be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made. I find that the appellants have produced evidence of two decisions in their own case both at the original level viz. Assistant Collector and the first appellate level namely Collector (Appeals) where the decisions went in their favour on identical issues covering refund in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was not taken into account, much less distinguished or overruled by the Collector (Appeals). 5. In the Orissa Cement case, the order in Revision passed by the Government of India in Brittania Biscuits Co. Ltd. - 1980 (10) E.L.T. 649 and in Godfrey Philips India Ltd. - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 495 were taken note of. In these cases refunds under Rule 173L were held admissible in the case of remanufacture of biscuits and cigarettes of variety and brands different from the returned ones. The clarification given by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under F. No. 261/23A/2/78 CX, dated 21-2-80 was also taken note of. Under this letter it was clarified that in the case of return under Rule 173L for remanufacture in respect of steel castings, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) which view on challenge by Revenue was upheld by the Tribunal. It was held that producing mortar from bricks does not take the case beyond the scope of Rule 173L. This will also support the decision in the present case that producing aluminium sections and extrusions from returned aluminium foils satisfies the requirement of Rule 173L including sub-rule (3) (iii) thereof which touches the question of goods of same class. 7. The appellants have submitted in their appeals that the remade products are aluminium sheets and extruded sections while the returned goods were aluminium foils and aluminium extrusions. All these fall under the same Tariff Item 27 with the same Tariff rate of duty. The fresh goods that had emerged are goods of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
