1. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the orders in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (A), Ahmedabad as per the details indicated below :-------------------------------------------------------------Appeal No. Order in appeal Date------------------------------------------------------------E/294/89-BOM GSM-442/89-AHD 26-9-1989E/593/89-BOM 1402/89-AHD 3-7-1989E/714/90-BOM 279 to 281/90/AHD/Collr (A) 20-7-1990E/715/90-BOM (98 to 100/90/CE/AHD/CE)E/34/90-BOM GSM-2245/89/AHD 8-11-1989E/747/91-BOM 672/91(216-AHD) CS/AHD/Collr (A) 10-9-1991E/744/91-BOM 606/91 to 608/91 (162 to 164-AHD) 12-8-1991E/745/91-BOM CE/AHD 2. Since the issue involved in all the aforesaid appeals are the same, they were heard together and proposed to be disposed of by this common order. In the case of Appeal No. 294/89-BOM, the appellants are M/s.
Anil Starch Products Ltd. where the issue was held against them by the Collector (A) and hence they have come in appeal, whereas, the rest of the appeals are by the Revenue where Collector (Appeals) held the issue in favour of M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd. The common issue is, whether in respect of the rejected goods, after re-processing cleared again on payment of duty by the assessee M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd. are eligible for benefit of refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, in the context of the undisputed facts as revealed by both the sides recorded below : M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of sor-bitol, glucose, dextrose etc. They cleared these products on payment of duty under Gate Passes to various customers. Some of the consignments were found to be defective and hence they were returned by the customers either partly or wholly. These rejected materials were received back in the factory of the assessee, after filing D-3 declaration and after due verification by the Departmental officers.
These goods were taken into the prescribed Form-V register.
Thereafter, these goodsare reported to have been mixed up with the main stream of process in the manufacture of the goods of the same class and reprocessed materials so obtained were again cleared on payment of duty. They filed refund claims in respect of the duty paid originally in terms of the provisions of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. These claims have been rejected by the Asstt.
Collector on the ground that they have not processed the returned goods separately and have not maintained separate accountal of the reprocessed goods. In view of this, he held that the provisions of Rule 173L has not been complied with, inasmuch as the proper accountal of the reprocessed goods has not been done vis-a-vis the returned goods taken for reprocessing. When the matter was pursuaded by the assessee before the Collector (Appeals), in one of the cases, the Collector (Appeals) held the issue against the assessee vide order in appeal No. GSM-442/89-AHD, dated 26-9-1989. Hence, the appellants M/s. Anil Starch Products Ltd. have come in appeal before us. In the rest of the cases, the Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the assessee by holding that there is no dispute that these goods were cleared on payment cf duty and were received back after filing D-3 declaration. The goods were taken into stock after due verification and they were also reprocessed to obtain goods of the same class, which were cleared on payment of duty. Hence, there is compliance with the requirement of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules.
3. We have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) holding the issue in favour of the assessee, especially, when the facts are not disputed. In certain cases, reprocessing can be done separately with regard to the returned goods. But in the case of chemical items, where the process is a continuous one, which cannot be stopped and it is not possible to reprocess the returned goods separately. It is not necessary, for accountal purpose that the returned goods are to be reprocessed separately and they cannot be mixed up with the running lot. Such a requirement is not envisaged under Rule 173L when the above factors clearly indicate that the returned goods have been subjected to re-processing and the reprocessed goods of the same class have been cleared on payment of duty again, Rule 173L would be available for granting refund, if other conditions specified in the Rule have been satisfied. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals from the Revenue and allow the appeal from the assessee with consequent relief.