9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken into form V account and they were stated to be removed with remarks `blending . All the same, the materials, obtained after blending are indicated as having been cleared on payment of duty again. 2.3 Show cause notices were issued on the following grounds : (i) Show cause notice for Rs. 9,519.20/-. Description of rejected goods is Permanent Red 2G with code No. 4203152, while the description of goods cleared after reprocessing is colour chem red fine paste - 535 with code 4101150. The quantity of rejected goods is 300 kgs, while the quantity of reprocessed goods cleared is 735 kgs. (ii) Show cause notice for Rs. 6078/-. The quantity of rejected goods received is 150 kgs and the quantity of reprocessed goods is 720 kgs. (iii) Show cause notice for Rs. 31,646/-. The quantity of rejected goods received is 780 kgs; the quantity of reprocessed goods cleared is 1000 kgs; (iv) Show cause notice for Rs. 11,088/-. The description of the rejected goods is Varna fine Red 2B paste with code No. 4102172, but the description of reprocessed goods cleared on payment of duty is colour chem red fine paste - 548 with code No. 4101170. The quantity of rejected goods received is 300 kg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds and have cleared goods of other description on payment of duty. Such blending of rejected goods with other goods does not appear to be covered by Rule 173L. In this view, he rejected the refund claims. 2.5 However, on appeal by the respondents, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the above order of the Asstt. Collector and allowed their appeals, on the following grounds : (i) The goods are pigments and preparations thereof. They are manufactured to certain specifications and standards to the requirements of the customers. So when a consignment is rejected on account of its quality or specification, these goods are invariably reprocessed, which may result into a different quality but falling under the same class. Different description and different code numbers are not indication of resulting goods being of a different class under Rule 173L, there is no bar for rejected goods being reprocessed into goods of different description so long as resulting goods fall in the same class of the rejected goods. (ii) Blending is an operation, which is carried on for making of pigments and preparations thereof. Several ingredients are mixed to get the desired specifications and standards. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the copies of relevant form V register, D-3 declaration filed to show that they have complied substantially with the statutory requirement under Rule 173L. 4.2 In the official text of the form prescribed for form V register, there is no column for showing the details of reprocessing (Col 7). Hence, they have indicated `blending in a general manner. 4.3 He also referred to the detailed worksheet given to the Asstt. Collector after personal hearing (vide their letter dated 6-7-1992), wherein all the details of processing done, quantity of other ingredients used, quantity obtained after reprocessing. The Asstt. Collector has not considered the worksheet at all, while the Collector (Appeals) has taken into account the explanation as per the worksheet for arriving at the satisfaction. 4.4 The Collector (Appeals) has considered every one of the objection raised in the show cause notice and the finding of the Asstt. Collector. The factual position discussed in the findings of the Collector is not disputed. Hence, even if it is considered that the details as given in the worksheet later along with their submissions during personal hearing, ought to have been recorded in from V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of in any other manner other than for production of goods of the same class. 5.3 We find in this case that allegation is mainly based on the discrepancy in regard to description and quantity of the returned goods vis-a-vis reprocessed goods cleared. There is no allegation that reprocessed goods fall under a different class of the goods vis-a-vis rejected goods. In view of this, the discrepancy alleged can not affect the eligibility for refund so long as it is not disputed that the rejected goods after reprocessing by blending with other ingredients result in production of the goods of the same class. This is what the Collector (Appeals) has observed, with which we entirely agree. 5.4 Now coming to the apprehension, that because of these descrepancies and the absence of details regarding reprocessing and quantity and details of other ingredients used not being mentioned in form V register, there could not have been any reprocessing at all, we are to observe that there is no basic allegation to that effect that the rejected goods receipted in form V register have been put to some other use other than for reprocessing and there are no evidences adduced to that effect even at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
