9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 4-9-1981, M/s. Tata Finlay Limited have appealed against the Appellate Collector of Central Excise Madras s rejection of their appeal by his order No. 69/81 dated 22-4-1981. This order arose from the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam II Division C. No. V/3/18/66/79 dated 16-8-1980 in which he rejected two refund claims by M/s. Tata Finlay for ₹ 59,455.23 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e package tea got converted into loose tea and so changed from one tariff head to another. For this reason, he found it impossible to hold that the goods had been used for production of goods of the same class. 4. Before us, the appellants have repeated most of what they told the lower authorities-how the tea came to be repacked and why it had to be repacked etc. They say that the repacking was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reconditioned, or subjected to other similar processes in the factory. 7. To begin with we do not know if the Collector allowed the return of this tea to the factory; but as nobody says anything to the contrary, we will take it he did. It is not known if the goods were cleared for export under claim for rebate or in bond-the Assistant Collector s order is silent on this. He deals with two refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot labour this here, as it is not necessary.] For this reason alone, the refund must be rejected under rule 173M. 10. It, further, appears to us that M/s. Tata Finlay did not proceed on the provisions of rule 173M. They merely claimed refund because the duty paid package tea had been brought back to the factory and repacked into loose tea. There is no provision in the law for such refund. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
