9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 213/97 (M) dated 15-10-1997 wherein the Assistant Commissioner's Order-in-Original rejecting the present respondent's claim for refund under Rule 173L was set aside and the present respondent's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been allowed. 2. Briefly, the issue concerns receipt of refractory fire bricks in the respondent's facto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore the said clause noted above is attracted and the facility under Rule 173L was correctly denied by the lower original authority. 3. Heard Shri S. Kannan, learned JDR who reiterated the grounds of appeal and forcibly submitted since the goods on return to the respondent's factory were crushed therefore they were the same as grog and therefore Clause (v) of Rule 173L (3) is attra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er process was carried upon by them. They were not used. They were simply rejected as being of a quality not acceptable to the buyer. Therefore what was received by them were actually returned. There cannot be any change in the value of the goods received from the goods cleared on payment of duty because the nature of the goods did not change at all. He further submits that in the trade parlance G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured in prime condition and were refractory bricks. (b) It is not disputed that the said refractory bricks without being broken or used or in any other way damaged were received back under Rule 173L. Therefore, I cannot subscribe to the view that what was received back was scrap. If every defective goods received back are viewed to be scrap then such a interpretation under Rule 173L would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
