TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (1) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff Item 14-E of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the period from June, 1974 to December, 1974 the appellants received back in their factory certain quantities of their products for the purposes of re-processing. After re-processing they cleared the goods on payment of Central Excise duty. Subsequently, the appellants claimed refund of duty originally paid in respect of the goods which were brought to their factory for re-processing and which were subsequently cleared on payment of duty. In all they made 12 claims. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by 12 separate orders disallowed portion of their claims holding that the amount of duty involved on the processing loss occurred while....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) the appellants preferred only one revision application before the Government of India which statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal and came to be numbered as Appeal No. 57/80. As there were 12 appeals before the Collector (Appeals) the Tribunal called upon the appellants either to restrict their appeal to any of their claim in the 12 appeals preferred before the Collector (Appeals) or to file 11 supplementary appeals. The appellants, however, filed 12 supplementary appeals and they came to be numbered as Appeal Nos. 151/84 to 162/84. As the revision application which is numbered as 57/80 is also considered the last of the appeal, namely, Appeal No. 162/84 shall have to be treated as redundant. 4.&e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rds of the case. 7. The question that appropriately arise in this appeal are (1) whether the appellants are entitled for refund of full amount of Central Excise duty paid at the time of first clearance of goods for home consumption and (2) whether the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector were right and justified in disallowing a part of their refund claim. Rule 173-L of the Rules authorises the Collector to grant refund of the duty paid or manufactured excisable goods issued for home consumption from a factory, which are returned to the same or any other factory for being remade, refined, reconditioned or supply to any other similar process in the factory. The conditions to be fulfilled by the manufacturer for claiming re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded that the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) have wrongly interpreted the Rule 173-L. Since it is not disputed that the appellants had complied with the provisions of Rule 173-L (1) and (2), it is not necessary to set out sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 173-L. Sub-rule (3) reads as under : 'No refund under sub-rule (1) shall be paid until the processes mentioned therein have been completed and on account under sub-rule (2) having been rendered to the satisfaction of the Collector within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. No refund shall be admissible in respect of the duty paid:- (i) in respect of opened packages containing goods with concessional rates of duty or partial exemption for the smal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded a finding that the goods received back in the factory of the appellants for reprocessing were disposed of in any manner other than for production of goods of the same class. In the absence of such a finding there is no scope to contend that the refund claim of the appellants fell within the ambit of sub-clause (iii) of sub-rule (3). The maintenance of account is provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 173-L. The account required to be maintained under that sub-rule is of the returned goods and the processes to which they are subjected after their return to the factory. There is no complaint that the appellants did not render the accounts of the returned goods to the satisfaction of the Collector within the specified period. On the other ha....