1992 (3) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se in brief are that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore IVth Division had sanctioned a refund of Rs. 48,195/- to the appellant under Rule I73L of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and allowed the appellant to take credit of the same in RG23A Pt. II in respect of 'bucket' returned to the appellant's factory. Subsequently, holding that the returned bucket was neither subjected to remaking nor to any other similar process specified under Rule I73L of Central Excise Rules, 1944, a show cause notice dt. 12-2-1991 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore IV Division as to why the amount of Rs. 48,195 which was erroneously refunded should not be demanded/recovered from them ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ture as defined in Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for being eligible for refund under Rule 173L. After observing the required formalities the Asstt. Collector has held that the activities to which 'bucket' was subjected did not amount to a manufacturing process and therefore he has held that the refund granted earlier was erroneous. He has accordingly demanded the same in the impugned order. I find that in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order the Asstt. Collector has interpreted the word 'remade' as amounting to remanufacture or manufacturing process, but that there is no authority for such an interpretation. Rule 173L has to be read in conjunction with Rule 173H. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 173H of th....