TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the claim for refund to the extent of Rs. 8,059.53. 2. The appellants, who are manufacturers of various types of chemicals, including soda ash, despatched the consignments of soda ash out of which 9 lots were received back for reprocessing and hence D-3 declaration Nos. 104 to 112 were filed during the period from 7-6-1977 to 9-2-1978. The consignments were reprocessed and despatched on payment of requisite duty and thereafter the appellants filed the claim for refund dated 24-6-1978. The show cause notice dated 28-3-1981 was, however, issued alleging non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. The adjudicating authority ultimately held that the refund claims were not admissible in respect of the consig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction raised by the appellants against the drawing of samples by the department and if in spite of that, the authority did not feel it necessary to take samples, no breach of the provisions could be attributable to the appellants. There was no statutory obligation imposed on the part of the appellants to make the officer to take such samples and it was entirely the discretion of the officer for the purpose of satisfying the due compliance of the requirements. He also submitted that the goods were stored separately till they were reprocessed, as required under Clause (iii) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 173L and submitted that during processing of the goods, they have to be mixed up with the other materials. Referring to the decision of this Bench i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund as is evident from the several allegations raised in the show cause notice. He submitted that there were two vital requirements under Rule 173L, one being that the goods ought to be received back in original packing and the other being that the goods should remain identifiable all through out. He submitted that it is not clear whether the goods were received back in original packing and referring to the reply submitted by the respondents before the adjudicating authority, he submitted that the appellants have admitted that the goods were damaged due to rains and could not have been received in original packing or might not have been in the total quantity as indicated by them. Under the circumstances, according to him the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore cannot be sustained. The second ground is regarding non-compliance of the requirement of the Rules. However, there is no specific allegation as to what are the violations. Raising such a vague objection does not stand the reasoning. Further the same Collector (Appeals) has, in his subsequent order passed within a short time thereafter, allowed the appeal filed by the very same appellants on the very same point here. The subsequent order is also produced here. There is no indication in the said orders passed by the same officer, as to why he has taken a different view though the facts were more or less identical. Apart from that the rule position stipulates compliance of certain requirements which appear to have been complied by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
