9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing fresh order. - ST/67/2009 - 1435/2009, - Dated:- 12-11-2009 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate and K.S. Ramesh, Consultant, for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 41/2008 dated 18-11-2008. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that M/s. Mangalam Eastern Water Recycling Ltd. and M/s. Noyyal Common Effluent Treatment Company Pvt. Ltd., of Tirupur have entered into an agreement with "M/s. IVRCL" for laying pipes for effluent conveyance system and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cancellation of the above said two certificates by the District collector, the Range Officer started recovery of the duty with interest on the clearances affected to M/s. IVRCL availing exemption from payment of duty under the above said two certificates and also directed M/s. Lanco Industries Ltd. to pay the duty on the subsequent clearances. As per the certificate issued by the Range Officer, it appears that M/s. Lanco Industries Ltd. have paid an amount of Rs. 91,73,684/- towards duty @ 16% Adv and Ed. Cess of Rs. 1,83,574/- vide supplementary Invoices for the clearances of 48,777.5 RMts of DI Pipes cleared to "M/s. IVRCL". Further, an amount of Rs. 82,13,748/- and Ed. Cess of Rs. 1,64,282/- was also paid on the clearances of 33,771.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate has been obtained and claimed refund as the supplies made in respect of the said projects are exempted from duty. 2.3 After scrutiny of the said refund claims, discrepancies noticed by the Revenue authorities was informed to the assessee/appellant. The 'appellant rectified the discrepancies as informed by the authorities. The Adjudicating Authority after considering the written submissions and the oral submissions made during the personal hearing, came to the conclusion that the refund claim filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected and he do so. Aggrieved by such an order, appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who also took an identical view and rejected and appeal filed by the appellant. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the District Collector under the said Notification No. 03/2004-C.E. The same were cancelled by the District Col lector, upon a query from the Commissioner of Central Excise, but again second set of certificates were issued by the very same Collector, on clarification re ceived from the Ministry of Finance. In the meanwhile, the appellants sought the clearance of the said DI pipes on payment of duty in order to complete the project given to them within time. The refund is claimed by the said appellant which has been paid by them to the manufacturer. It is undisputed that the said DI pipes are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 03/2004-C.E. subject to fulfilling of conditions. 7. On perusal of the record, we find that the cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
