TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al directed against the order-in-appeal No. KVV-31/92-BI, dated 24-2-1992, allowing the appeal of the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents claimed refund of duty paid on certain glass vials which were received in terms of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. The claim was sought to be rejected on the ground that the market value of the goods returned was less than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , irrespective of the Collector granting permission for bringing the duty paid glass vials under Rule 173L. The statutory requirement cannot be overlooked by the authorities, while sanctioning refund claim. He also sought to rely on the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s. GTC Industries, reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 200 (Tribunal). 4. Shri G.R. Bhatt, the ld. consultant, on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actured and cleared on payment of duty and they would be claiming refund in respect of the same under Rule 173L. A copy of this letter dated 16-6-1989 was also produced during the hearing. Thereupon, the Supdt. under his letter dated 6-7-1989 conveyed the Collector s permission for operating under Rule 173L subject to the following condition viz. filing D-3 declaration; maintenance of Gate Pass wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be cleared under Rule 56-B, because of the labour problem, testing and inspection could not be carried out in the factory. These operations would have otherwise been conducted in the factory itself and such rejected vials would have gone back to the manufacturing stream by way of recycling. Because of the labour problem, they had to remove these goods to their own premises outside where testing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
