9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (J)]. The above appeal arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order of the Assistant Collector by which he has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants for refund of Rs. 86,841.26 P duty paid on re-glass lining on old and used glass-lined equipment. 2. The appellants manufacture glass-lined vessels and clear the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g partially time-barred. 4. We have heard Shri K.A. Sindhi, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri P.K. Jain, learned DR for the Revenue. We note that the refund claim is for duty paid when glass-lined vessels are cleared the second time after subjecting them to the process of re-glass lining. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lathia Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to manufacture, there is no foundation for fixing 14-3-1986 as the commencement of the period from which the process would not amount to manufacture. The Supreme Court therefore, was concerned with the basis for applying 14th March, 1986 as the cut-off date subsequent to which the department held that the process of re-rubbering and re-lining of old and used vessels was not a process of manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
