2005 (11) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was called out none appeared for the appellants but I find that the appellants have filed a written submissions, which is on record. The appellants submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong as the appellants have given detailed account of the receipt of the duty paid inputs and have followed the correct procedure as laid down in Rule 173L. They have further submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellants have cleared on payment of appropriate duty the products manufactured by the appellants from the said returned goods. They also rely upon the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in their own cases, wherein, in the similar and identical situations refund was granted to them. They have further submitted that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... um sheets supplied by them. The appellants have been filing the D3 intimation as required under Rule 173L of the Central excise Rules, 1944. On perusal of the document I find that the departmental officers have always verified the said D3 intimations. After completing the procedural formalities the appellants loaded this returned goods in to their smelter to do the remaking of the aluminium sheets. This process of the remaking of the returned goods of the appellants was accepted by the department in their earlier refund claims and which is not challenged by the department. The fact of receipt of the duty paid aluminium sheets is not disputed and nor it is disputed that the returned goods are subjected to the processing by smelting. What is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lip etc. I find that in this case the appellants have demonstrated that their returned goods have been used in the manufacture of the finished goods and the department does not dispute the same. In respect of the unjust enrichment I find that the appellants were not put on notice in the Show Cause Notice about this and hence the rejection of the appeal on this ground is travelling beyond the Show Cause Notice. It is a settled law that any order, which is travelling beyond the Show Cause Notice, is bad and is liable to be struck down. 5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of the refund claim, deserves to set aside. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X