9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order]. - The facts of the case are that the respondents (manufacturers of bulbs and glass shells) had cleared certain quantity of glass shells on payment of duty to their customers, M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd.; that the customers found the goods defective and returned the same to the respondents; that the respondents on receipt of the returned goods filed D-3 intimation with the jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard both sides. 3. Ld. JDR reiterates the grounds of the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the respondents justifies the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the decision of this Bench in CCE, Indore v. Medi Caps Ltd. [2002 (140) E.L.T. 469] as also the decision of the Southern Zonal Bench of this Tribunal in CCE, Chennai v. Vanagaram Refractory Works [1999 (111) E.L.T. 890]. 4. I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
