COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. SURYA ROSHNI LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 1 -11 -2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal. The issue relates to sanction of refund claim of Rs. 33,352/ - under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) Shri A.S. Bedi, learned SDR has appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he submitted that the items in question are Tubler Glass Shell; that findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods returned were defective is not correct, in view of the fact that the respondent had received the goods F.T.L. Glass Shells from M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd., Shikohabad under Invoice No. 574 and 575 both dated 28 -5 -99, superscribing on the top of invoice as "Removal of incoming inputs after payment of duty under Rule 57F(2) (3)."; thus it is clear that the goods cleared by M/s. Hind Lamp Ltd. were not for being remade, refined, reconditioned or subject to any other similar process, but the goods were simply cleared as removal of inputs as such; that the fact of returned goods being defective and had some quality problem, is established by the inspection reports and letter of M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. copies of which were then given to the Adjudicating Authority by the respondent on 15 -10 -99 i.e. before passing the Order -in -Original who did not consider and commented thereon in the Order -in -Original. These findings of Commissioner (Appeals) are not correct in view of the fact that Respondent's letter dated 15 -10 -99 was received in the office of the Assistant Commissioner on 18 -10 -99 and by then Dy. Commissioner had already passed the Order -in -Original on 18 -10 -99 and hence, it was not possible for Adjudicating Authority to consider the contents of this letter; that Commissioner (Appeals) has also not appreciated the fact that only copy of letter dated 15 -10 -99 of M/s. Hind Lamp Ltd. was submitted with respondent letter and not the inspection report; that M/s. Hind Lamp Ltd.'s letter dated 29 -5 -99 addressed to the Respondent does not specify the nature of "defect" found in the goods because of which it was returned to the respondent; that the reasons given for return of the goods are "vague" viz "quality of the above F.T.L. Glass Shells supplied to us is not satisfactory and also as per our specifications." That it is very clear that the exact details of quality specifications or any other specifications are not mentioned; finally submitted that Impugned Order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.

(3.) Shri P.N. Kaul, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent and he submitted that goods were sent back by M/s. Hind Lamp Ltd. under their invoice on 28 -5 -99 that the quality of goods was not satisfactory and also not as per specifications; that Adjudicating Authority has passed an order in violation of principles of natural justice.