9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T)]. These are three appeals filed by Revenue arising out of a common order-in-appeal, dated 30-4-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund claim under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. 2. Briefly stated that the facts are that respondents M/s. Kothari Products (P) Ltd. manufactured Pan Masala which is cleared on payment of duty. As certain quantity of Pan Masa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner also found that Form-V Register has not been properly maintained. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Kothari Products (P) Ltd. relying on earlier order-in-appeal, dated 25-7-1996 in which the refund claim filed by the Respondents were allowed. 3. Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDR, submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, submitted that the Tribunal earlier also in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Customs, reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 130 (T) has allowed the refund claim under Rule 173L in the cases where the returned goods were mixed with other material and re-manufactured into a fresh product. That similarly, in Mexin Medicaments Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. It has not been controverted by the Department that the respondent has received the duty paid goods back into their factory under proper intimation by filing D-3 intimation. They have undertaken the process of re-making of the damaged Pan Masala by mixing the same with the fresh material. The Assistant Commissioner in his adjudication order has not given any reason for arriving at the conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed their contention at all by adducing any evidence. Finally, we find that the Tribunal has already rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue against the earlier order which has been relied upon by the Commissioner in the impugned order. We also find that the ROM application filed by the Revenue against such order has also been rejected by the Tribunal vide Misc. Order No. M/511/98-NB(S), dated 17- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
