9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne appears for appellants who have submitted vide letter dated 23-11-1999 for a decision on merits. 2. Heard Ld. D.R. Shri S. Kannan. 3. The simple issue under dispute is that when rejected goods are returned for remaking/reconditioning under Rule 173L and after the said process of remaking/reconditioning, if there is a process loss and the fresh goods which emerge from this process are less i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in all these appeals also. They have further submitted that the refund under Rule 173L is to be granted in full notwithstanding process loss as had been held by the Tribunal in the case of Food, Fats Fertilizers v. Collector as reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 133. 5. Heard ld. DR, Shri S. Kannan, who submits that as far as the decision of the Tribunal cited in the case of Food, Fats Fertilizers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at more goods had emerged after such re-processing/reconditioning, etc. than there fund was given. Therefore, the import of this is that no refund can be given on what was claimed as a process loss. In this connection, even the Tribunal s Final Order No. 277/91, dated 3-5-1991 is of no help to the appellants because the Tribunal therein has also in para 6 observed that the refund will be limited t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of Foods, Fats Fertilizers cited supra by the appellants is now stands distinguished because it considered Rule 173L for a period prior to 1-9-1988 when sub-rule IV was not in existence. Therefore, in terms of the Rule as it then existed, the Tribunal had ruled that the refund would be covering the entire goods received under Rule 173L. W.e.f 1-9-1988, the legal position has changed as ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order appealed against that the assessees had not provided any evidence to show that the quantities which emerged after remaking/reconditioning/ reprocessing, etc. were different. In view of there being no evidence, he has rejected the appeals before him. Before this Tribunal also, the appellants have not submitted any evidence to show that the refund claimed by them is supported by facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
