2005 (12) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate and Smt. Urmita Dutta Sen, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard Shri A. Hore ld. JDR on the appeal filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata-VI, Commissionerate, Kolkata, against the Order-in-Appeal No. 094/KOL-VI/2003 dated 24-11-2003. He reiterates the grounds of appeal given by the Commissioner in his appeal. This is a case of lubricating oil has been returned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s have been verified by the concerned officer of the Central Excise after reprocessing by the officer of the Department on 11-5-2001. The ground of the appeal taken by the Revenue that the records have been manipulated does not hold water since the goods have been verified by the officer of the Department and further the above charge is not found in the show cause notice issued to the respondents.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Plus' out of the returned goods 'CRB Plus' and 'CRD Tractor Max'. Both the goods are lubricating oil under the same S.H. No. 2710.90, and therefore they can be said to be 'goods of same class' in the light of the case law in India Forging and Stamping Co. v. CCE, Jamshedpur [2001 (134) E.L.T. 507 (Tri.-Kolkata)]. Verification of the returned goods was duly done by the proper officer on receipt of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authority went beyond his scope in framing such fresh allegation. Lastly, I do not agree with the department's contention that the quality/condition of goods cannot be ascertained by its visual appearance. Besides, the appellant claimed that their quality control department had tested the goods before declaring those unfit for sale." 4. I find that the D-3 declaration in this case submitte....