2008 (4) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... na Wadhwa, Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vinod Awtani, C.A., for the Appellant. Shri M.M. Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The appellants brought back the duty paid pesticides to their factory for the purpose of repacking and carrying out other processes under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There is no dispute 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

..... T39) which has clarified that when fabrics are received by manufacturer for reprocessing, by doing the processes such as, dyeing, stantering, heat setting etc., the benefit of Rule 173H cannot be denied since these processes are carried out again on the fabrics. They state that in their case also, they had repeated the processes which are deemed to be manufacture and therefore, the benefit cannot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have paid duty and cleared the goods and claimed refund. By following the Rule 173H, they have only avoided the scriptory work and also there is no need for filing refund claim. The appellants also state that wherever there is value addition or price has increased, they have paid differential duty. Even if it is assumed that the process followed by the appellants was irregular, yet it is revenue n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X