TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....copper rods the appellant filed intimation regarding the receipt of such duty paid goods as required under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules. Thereafter they were re-charged into furnace, melted, cast and rolled to make new copper rods of the same diameter and specification as those described for remaking and thereafter they were removed without payment of duty which is permissible under 173H of Central Excise Rules. Show-cause notice was issued on 2-8-1993 on the ground that remaking carried out on the rejected rods amounted to manufacture as the rejected goods were mixed with fresh raw materials, melted in furnace and new rod manufactured. The Jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, confirmed the demand under his order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailed under the scope 173H. 3.  Learned Counsel for the respondent, Shri Vipin Jain contended that the above said decision of Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. has been referred to and distinguished the decision in the case of Shriram Refrigerators Ltd. v. CCE - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 353. It was held by the Tribunal that in Shriram Piston case what was returned were scrapped pistons and new pistons were made therefrom and therefore it was a case of conversion of scrap into a distinct commodity known as piston. On the other hand, the learned Counsel relied upon Shriram Refrigerators decision of the Tribunal to urge that the process remelting and remanufacturing of the copper rods carried out by the respondent will fit in with provision of Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the learned counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment reported in Eullerman v. CCE 1971 (82) ITR 913 wherein the Supreme Court held that direction given in a departmental circular even if a deviation of the provision of the Act, yet it would be binding on the IT officers. 5. The submissions made by both the parties have been carefully considered. The appellants have received back copper rods of certain specification which had been returned to them by the customer due to defects or surface imperfection. By the very nature of the goods and the defects thereon, the remedy lies only in remelting and remaking of the rods which has been undertaken by the respondent. But after these processes, the rods are remade to the same specifications ....