ROOTS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Order -in -Appeal No. 65/2003 -CE dated 27.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore by which the Commissioner has rejected the refund claim of the appellants.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Electric Horn Assembly falling under sub -heading 8512.00 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. They have supplied the goods to Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL). MUL rejected 11,000 horns and returned to the appellants for repair and on receipt of the rejected goods at the factory of the appellants, Appellants filed D -3 Declarations on two occasions viz. 22.2.1997 and 19.5.1997 alongwith copies of duty paid documents and the declarations were verified by the proper officer and the quantity particulars were found correct. Appellants cleared 3,300 horns out of the returned 11,000 horns duly repaired and necessary entries were made in the statutory registers and the repaired goods were kept ready for despatch on receipt of orders. They have filed two refund claims for Rs. 77,480 and another claim for a sum of Rs. 53,640 on 18.11.97 under Rule 173L of the erstwhile CE Rules, 1944 within six months from the date of re -entry of the goods into their factory, as required under the rules. Show cause notices were however, issued to the appellants proposing to reject the claims on the ground that the repaired goods were still lying with the appellants and at that stage the question of allowing the refund does not arise. Though at the time of filing the reply, the repaired goods were not cleared on payment of duty, the same were later on cleared on payment of duty and the appellants submitted documentary evidence for having cleared 3300 numbers of repaired horns again on payment of duty and this fact was also brought to the notice of the original authority at the time of personal hearing. However, the refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order -in -Original No. 24/98 dated 22.7.98 on the ground that appellants have not specified the amount of refund payable as per proviso (iv) to Rule 173L(1) of the CE Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order of the original authority, the appellants preferred appeal before the lower appellate authority who by the impugned order has rejected the claim holding as under:

(3.) Aggrieved by Order -in -Appeal, the appellants have come in appeal. In the grounds of appeal, it is inter alia stated as under: