TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application :- "(a) That the impugned order passed by the appellate Tribunal is without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true and correct perspective. That the impugned order is passed without applying the correct legal position and without appreciating the evidence and accordingly requires to be quashed and set aside. (b) that the impugned order is passed in defiance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch the same is an ex parte order. The applicant though requested for specific hearing, the same was not granted to them and the order has been passed ex parte only on the arguments and submissions of the departmental representative. On this ground only, the impugned order requires to be quas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts to manufacture is illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. In fact, the provisions of Rule 173-h specifically allow manufacturers like the applicant to repair, refine, reprocess etc. any such defective goods cleared by them by permitting re-entry of the same in the factory premises and after such process removed the same without payment of duty provided no such process has taken place which amounts to manufacture. Firstly, therefore, it is necessary to refer to and understand the provisions of Rule 173-h of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which are as under :- ..................................................... (e) Now, resorting to the provisions of Rule 173-h as stipulated once again it is found that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vice of being a non-speaking order without there being any single justification or reason to conclude so. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (h) That the impugned order is further vitiated and improper inasmuch as the same is passed relying upon rather irrelevant cases and their findings without properly matching or applying the same to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has sought it to refer to and to rely upon cases which have no direct bearing on the facts of the present case and which are clearly distinguishable rather than seeking to place reliance upon the directly identical cases cited before it. In fact, a reading of the case of Reliance Storage Energy and Syste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Commissioner Appeals, Ahmedabad taking into consideration the entire factual and legal position is thoroughly justified and proper as can be seen from a bare reading of the order. There is valid reasoning given in the order to uphold the contentions of the present respondent in concluding the activity of remaking of warranty claimed rejected batteries is proper and legal as per the provisions of erstwhile Rule 173-h and the new substituted Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. (k) Now going by the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant department in their memorandum of the appeal we hereinbelow concisely and briefly point out our objections to the same. (l) With reference to ground I taken in the memorandum of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s :- (a) J.K. Synthetics v. CCE - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.); (b) Sanghani Bright Steel v. UOI - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 279 (Guj.); (c) Capital Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 241 (Tri.-Del); (d) Ganesh Aeropack v. CCE, Madurai - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1455 (Tri.-Chennai); (e) Mayank Electrod Ltd. v. CCE, Daman - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 548 (Tri-Mum); (f) Reliance Storage Energy & Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-III - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 210 (Tri.-Cal); (g) Asahi India Glass Ltd. v. CCE, Belapur - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 66 (Tri.-Mum.); (h) ....