9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in rejecting the alternative plea of the appellants that their claim ought to have been considered in terms of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules 1944, merely because the same was not taken earlier ?" Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the alternate plea of the appellant that their claim ought to have been considered in terms of Rule 173-H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule 1944 and it could not have been rejected merely on the ground that it was not claimed by the appellants earlier. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order of the Tribunal. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the appellants took modvat credit on ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning as to whether defective parts returned by the appellants' Customers had, infact, been reprocessed by the appellants in their factory in the same manner as they used to process their raw-material for manufacture of their final products in the normal course and if it is found that the appellant's had undertaken such reprocessing, they will be eligible for the modvat credit in question. The appellants accepted the aforesaid final order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2001 and participated in the remand proceedings for the aforesaid limited purpose. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II, Ghaziabad considered the matter in detail in compliance to the final order of the Tribunal. He afforded three opportunities of personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel that the claim of the appellants under Rule 173H should have been in the alternative consideration as they made a request before the adjudicating authority in this regard, cannot be accepted. No such plea was taken by them even in their reply to the show cause. There was no such direction by the Tribunal while remanding the case that the alternative plea of the appellants in terms of Rule 173H will be considered by the adjudicating authority. Even after the remand when the adjudicating authority afforded 3 effective opportunities to the appellants, they did not make any request in writing giving detailed reasons and the grounds for considering their claim under Rule 173H. They only submitted flow charts in respect of the various process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
