ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. These appellants are an assessee under Central Excise Act 1944 & they sent vide duty paid Invoice No. 76 dated 21.6.96 & Invoice No. 82 dated 27.6.96, Thermo Plastic Rubber Footwear compound granules to a buyer, out of the aggregate quantity of 4,614.7 kg, a quantity of 1,250 & 8572 kgs respectively were rejected & returned. D-3 procedure was followed, goods reprocessed & sent back vide invoices No. 382 dated 17.1.97 & 29 dated 29.4.97 on payment of duty. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a refund of Rs. 38,459/- by way of credit to RG23A Part II under Rule 173 L. Revenue filed an appeal to CCEC(Appeal) on the grounds
i) Identity of goods subsequently cleared cannot be corrected.
ii) Delay of reprocessing undertaken not provided in form V statements filed.
The Ld. CCE(Appeal) allowed the department’s appeal on the grounds.
i) Quantity cleared after reprocessing is much less than quantity initially cleared
ii) Identity of goods subsequently cleared is not related with goods initially cleared.
Subsequently the refund in E/914 granted were recalled where supply was to another buyer.
2. Hence this appeals which are taken for disposal by this order
3. Heard both sides & considered the issue & it is found-
a) CEGAT vide its order in the case of CCE v. Kopran Chemicals 1996 (88) ELT at 487 has held that details of processing not mentioned in form V would not by itself be a cause to deny the refund. Following the same, the ground taken by Revenue in appeal should not have been entertained by CCE(Appeals)
b) CEGAT in the case of Santel India Ltd (1996(86) ELT 596 have held that identity of goods reprocessed & cleared with those received back was not essential or a criterion to reject the refund. Following the same, & nothing contrary relied by the CCE(Appeal) & produced before me, it is to be held so long as goods are of the same class, which in this case, they are the refund cannot be impugned.
c) Refund could be denied under Rule 173 L only on the grounds as mentioned under Rule 173 L (3) On the perusal of the same, none of the clauses therein are attracted & the procedure prescribed has been followed. The order cannot be impugned.
d) Commissioner’s order can not be upheld since he has not dealt with any of the case laws cited, while he was bound to follow.
4. Hence these appeals are to be allowed.
5. Ordered accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court)