TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. M. Patwari the ld. JDR. Respondents did not appear but made written submissions referring to the cross objection earlier filed. 2. The respondents manufactured colours. They sought permission under Rule 173H to receive certain defective colours for reprocessing. In their letter dated 1-9-1993, they narrated the process for removal of defects. The permission was granted vide letter dated 3-9-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) cited the Judgment in the case of J.G. Glass Ltd. and allowed the appeal. 3. In the present appeal from Revenue, reliance is placed on the Tribunal s earlier Judgment in the case of Sriram Pistons Rings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1983 E.L.T. 1927 (T). In the judgment it was held the process of remaking should fall short of manufacture. 4. I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t must go to the assessees. This Judgment was followed in the later judgment in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 823. The Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Karna Industries, 1992 (42) E.C.R. 522 is not relevant to the present dispute. 6. In the case of J.G. Glass Ltd. as also Sterlite Industries, the proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
