TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, Consultant, for the Respondents. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order in para 13 held as under: "13. From all the three situations as discussed above, it is seen that none of the cases, the appellants have to pay the duty twice. Since in the instant case, the appellants have chosen to opt the procedure under Rule 173H, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dharampal Satyapal and Others reported in 2000 (36) RLT 289. He submits, therefore, that in view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the respondents herein should have paid duty at the time of clearance of Pan Masala packed in unit containers. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed. 3. Shri R. Swaminathan, Ld. Consultant submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia Ltd. v. CCE Meerut reported in 2000(119) E.L.T. 662 wherein this Tribunal held that when goods are received for repair, reconditioning, refining etc. under Rule 173H and when Pan Masala is received back for reflavouring and adding fresh flavour in the reprocessed pan masala, it does not amount to manufacture and therefore, demand was not sustainable in-as-much as pan masala remained the same c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case law cited by the Revenue pertains to situation entirely different from the present one and therefore, the decisions are clearly distinguishable. The case law cited by the respondent pertains to pan masala which was received in the factory for reprocessing and repacking and thus, the facts in the present case and one relied upon by the respondents are similar. Moreover, Larger Benches of this ....