2003 (11) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 23-5-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants claimed Modvat credit of the disputed amount in respect of the defective goods which they cleared from their factory after removing the defect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellants had been reprocessed by them in their factory in the same manner as they used to process the raw material for manufacture of the final products in the normal course. In order to comply with this direction of the Tribunal, the adjudicating authority afforded 3 personal hearing to the appellants and thereafter visited their factory premises on 31-7-2001 on their request to have a first hand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re of their final products. That being so, the appellants had been rightly disallowed the Modvat credit. The contention of the learned Counsel that the claim of the appellants under Rule 173H should have been in the alternative consideration as they made a request before the adjudicating authority in this regard, cannot be accepted. No such plea was taken by them even in their reply to the show ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X