COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, Vs. EXCEL GLASSES LTD.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The department has come with an appeal on the ground that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) ought to have found that under Rule 173L (3) (V) the refund claim should have been rejected since as per a market survey conducted by the Assistant Commissioner the value of the goods at the time of re -entry into their factory was less than the duty originally paid on the goods at the time of originally clearance from the factory.

(2.) Arguing for the Revenue, Smt. Radha Arun, SDR submitted that the respondents are manufactures of glass containers. They brought back a consignment of glass bottles into their factory for the purpose of re -manufacturing under Rule 173L. They filed a refund claim for Rs. 91,506/ - for the refund of duty originally paid on the bottles while they were cleared initially from their factory. The Assistant Commissioner rejected their refund application on the ground that the value of the bottles at the time of re -entry into their factory was less than the duty paid on the bottles at the time of original clearance from the factory and therefore the claim of refund is not by the provision of Sub -rule 3 (V) of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(3.) She submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an order without examining the factual position of he case. She submitted that he framed an issue in a general manner observing that the point to be considered in this case is whether goods which are returned after he rejection can be ipso -facto be considered to be hit by sub Rule (3) (v) of Rule 173L. She also submitted that the issue framed in this case is not correct and contrary to the facts of the case. Issue to be framed with reference to facts of the case.