1989 (4) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  - Brief facts of this case are as follows: - 1.1 The respondent company filed a refund claim for Rs. 4106.85p with the concerned Assistant Collector on 26-9-1980 for duty paid on cotton fabrics cleared on 17-6-1980. The grounds of the claim were that the company cleared a quantity 19932 sq. meters of cloth after payment of excise duty, this was delivered to M/s. Textile Finishers for rai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....permission could be taken by the respondent company under Rule 56-B or under Rule 96-D. In other words, they could clear the fabrics in the first instance without payment of duty, get the process of raising done outside and then receive the goods printing and the final payment of duty could be made only on the printed fabric without paying the duty on the bleached fabric in the first instance. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e urges that remaking means to make again or differently. Therefore, the process of printing undertaken on the fabric is clearly covered by the process 'remaking' mentioned specifically among others in Rule 173-L. He also points out that in any case the respondent company was guided by the Range Officer who advised to claim the refund under Rule 173-L and consequently D-3 forms were duly submitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....D. In other words, they were not required to pay duty on the bleached cotton fabric which was initially cleared on payment of duty in the first instance. It is this very duty which has been claimed by the appellant by way of refund. Without going into the merits of question whether the process undertaken by the respondent company is covered under the provisions of Rule 173-L or not, I am inclined ....