2002 (9) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their customers which were returned to them on account of breakage/not of proper weight; that D-3 intimations were filed by them with the Central Excise Authorities and, thereafter, the rejected goods so received were melted and remade into cast iron sleeper plates, brake shoes & sockets and cleared to other customers after payment of central excise duty; that the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims on the ground that the details of processing undertaken by them were not mentioned in the prescribed register and goods made remade by them were not of the same class as required under sub-rule (3)(iii) of Rule 173L; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their claim holding that the lapses on the part of the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... class' does not mean that the goods fall under the same heading of the Tariff and should be identical goods; that if the goods broadly confirm to the same class it has to be treated as goods of the same class. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of C.C.E., Indore v. Medi Caps Ltd. [2002 (140) E.L.T. 469 (T) = 2002 (51) RLT 45 (CEGAT Del.)]. Finally, the learned Advocate submitted alternatively that at least the refund is allowable to them on the quantity of sockets remanufactured and cleared as the goods received back were also sockets. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri H.C. Verma, learned DR, submitted that the refund of the duty under Rule 173L is available subject to the condition specified in the Rules. Sub-rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issue slip and production slip, etc. The refund, therefore, is not deniable on the ground of non-maintenance of the accounts. Sub-rule (3)(iii) of Rule 173L provides that no refund shall be paid on goods which are disposed of in any manner other than the production of goods of the same class. It is not in dispute that the goods received back by the appellants were sockets whereas the goods remade were brake shoe, sole plates besides sockets. Brake shoe and sole plates cannot be treated as goods of same class as these are different goods. In the case of Indian Forging & Stamping Co., relied upon by the learned Advocate, the goods received back were semi-finished forged slabs and goods re-made were semi-finished forged products roughly shaped....