9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. This is an appeal filed by the appellant assessee against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai dated 23-8-2000. In the appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the contention raised by the assessee that they were entitled for refund in terms of provisions of Rule 173L of the C.E. Rules. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing Sl. No IP 1307 and IP 1308 both dated 20-1-98 after debitting Rs. 49,500 each in their RG 23A Part II register. However, the goods were rejected by their buyer M/s. Berger Paints (I) Ltd., Calcutta and hence the goods were brought back into the factory under Rule 173L. On payment of duty of Rs. 49,500/- on each consignment, the claimant have cleared the returned goods. Total duty Rs. 99,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuously and with lot of emphasis and invited my attention to the finding given by the Assistant Commissioner regarding re-packing of the goods before clearance of the same by the assessee. This fact is re-emphasised before me. The DR would say that it was never brought to the notice of the Department. I have deeply considered this aspect of the matter. The show cause notice should only be a proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is true that under Chapters 11 to 29 envisages manufacture in receipt of re-packing. But that was inserted only after 1999-2000. Hear it is admittedly a period anterior to it. That clause which was inserted in Chapter 11 does not have retrospective operation. Be that as it may the show cause notice is very clear. I do not think the impugned order can be sustained on the basis of the existing ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
