2003 (4) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nappa, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. The appellant filed a D 3 declaration under Rule 173L since the goods were returned to the factory for being remade, recondition or subjected to another similar processes in the factory. After carrying on the process, they filed a refund claim. Pursuant to that, a show cause notice was issued, proposing to reject the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent back. Such clearance were not covered under provisions of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore the refund claim is inadmissible. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection after considering the letter of the customer which reads as follows : This has reference to the materials supplied by you our site, at Perundurai, Tamil Nadu. After completion of the work at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es re making, in the sense of making once again i.e. manufacturing once more. In Circular No. 2/87, dated 7-1-87, the CBEC referred to the opinion of the Law Ministry whereby the meaning attached to the word remade as used in this rule amounted to remanufacture. Accordingly in the case of Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 329, 336 (T), the Hon ble Tribunal had he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X