9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal No. 92/2006 (V-I) C.E., dated 14-7-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-IV. 2. The appellants manufacture Aluminum Alloy Wheels. They were 100% EOU in the Viskahpatnam Export Processing Zone (VEPZ) up to 31-3-2000 and later a 100% EOU outside the VEPZ zone. The issue relates to the defective goods which were returned by the custome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner. There is no justification in their view for not extending date. 3. Ms. Anjali Agarwal, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. She relied on the following case laws: (i) Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 881 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein it is held that refund of duty originally paid on the defective goods could not be denied on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed goods after reprocessing. As their refund claim was rejected, they had requested the department for permitting them to clear the goods after reprocessing beyond the period of six months. This is only a procedural matter and there is no reason why this request should not have been acceded to by the learned lower authority. The Commissioner (A) has not appreciated the facts properly. In any cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
