2005 (11) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. When the matter was called out none appeared for the appellants but I find that the appellants have filed a written submissions, which is on record. The appellants submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong as the appellants have given detailed account of the receipt of the duty paid inputs and have followed the correct procedure as laid down in Rule 173L. They have further submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellants have cleared on payment of appropriate duty the products manufactured by the appellants from the said returned goods. They also rely upon the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in their own cases, wherein, in the similar and identical situations refund was granted to them. They have f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the final products like the Aluminium sheets supplied by them. The appellants have been filing the D3 intimation as required under Rule 173L of the Central excise Rules, 1944. On perusal of the document I find that the departmental officers have always verified the said D3 intimations. After completing the procedural formalities the appellants loaded this returned goods in to their smelter to do the remaking of the aluminium sheets. This process of the remaking of the returned goods of the appellants was accepted by the department in their earlier refund claims and which is not challenged by the department. The fact of receipt of the duty paid aluminium sheets is not disputed and nor it is disputed that the returned goods are subjected t....