9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1417 - AT - Central ExciseStay of operation of the impugned order - refund of the amounts of Central Excise duty paid on Portland Cement - N/N. 04/2006-CE as amended - Held that - Holding that the respondent M/s Penna Cements is eligible for such exemption Notification in the case of PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, TIRUPATI 2018 (2) TMI 1306 - CESTAT HYDERABAD has allowed appeal of Penna Cements. We find that the First Appellate Authority in this case has followed the law which has been laid down by the various decisions of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Refund of Central Excise duty on "Portland Cement" under Notification No. 04/2006-CE
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD, the issue at hand pertains to the refund of Central Excise duty on "Portland Cement" under Notification No. 04/2006-CE. The Revenue filed an application for staying the operation of the impugned order. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, noted that the appeal's issue was narrow and proceeded to dispose of the stay petition before taking up the appeal for disposal. Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the issue revolved around the refund of Central Excise duty paid on "Portland Cement." The respondent had paid the duty liability, believing they were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-CE. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous Final Order where it was held that the respondent, M/s Penna Cements, was indeed eligible for the exemption under the said Notification. The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had correctly applied the law established by previous Tribunal decisions in this matter. The Tribunal, after reviewing its previous decision in the respondent's case and other similar cases, found no reason to deviate from the established view. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a close.
|
