TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nod Awtani, C.A., for the Appellant. Shri M.M. Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. The appellants brought back the duty paid pesticides to their factory for the purpose of repacking and carrying out other processes under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There is no dispute that the appellants relabeled where there was damage in label ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturer for reprocessing, by doing the processes such as, dyeing, stantering, heat setting etc., the benefit of Rule 173H cannot be denied since these processes are carried out again on the fabrics. They state that in their case also, they had repeated the processes which are deemed to be manufacture and therefore, the benefit cannot be denied. They also cited the judgment of the Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed refund. By following the Rule 173H, they have only avoided the scriptory work and also there is no need for filing refund claim. The appellants also state that wherever there is value addition or price has increased, they have paid differential duty. Even if it is assumed that the process followed by the appellants was irregular, yet it is revenue neutral and it has benefited both the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
