2003 (4) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - The appellants had claimed a refund of Rs. 30,960/- under Rule 173L on duty paid material received back. 2. The lower authority issued a notice to reject the same on the grounds - (i)      duplicate copy of Invoice No. 1149 dated 8-3-99 not produced, so the rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 8-3-2000, the refund was rejected after coming to the following findings - "9. It is my considered view that out of scrapped pipes, pipes conforming to IS specification cannot be manufactured. More than 50% of virgin granules are required for manufacture of pipes conforming to IS specification. Therefore the contention of the assessee that the pipes conforming to IS specification were m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 11-1-2000 is Rs. 75,592/-. Further there is no communication from M/s. Pragathi Agencies that the pipes supplied vide Invoice No. 1149 and 1150 were rejected. Therefore the assessee could not establish that the goods cleared vide invoice Nos. 1149 and 1150 were the ones rejected." 4. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held as - "The order-in-original reflects that the main ground ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or otherwise of the invoice is of little consequence in this case, because the appellants customer is not a registered manufacturer under the CEA. Hence the question of availing Modvat credit does not arise. In view of the above facts and finding that part of the order-in-original No. 85/2000, dated 14-8-2001/17-8-2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore II Division, disallowing refund....