9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the Revenue seeks stay of the operation of the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-10-1999 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which permits refund of Rs. 2,65,094.21 which was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner vide his order dated 4-9-1996. 2. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR, reiterates reasoning contained in Order-in-Original of the Asstt. Commissioner and also the grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iswas, ld. Consultant, while countering the arguments of the ld. JDR admits the fact that a different variety of goods were manufactured, but claimed that they belong to the same class of goods. As per clause (iii) of sub-rule 3 of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, It is permissible to use the goods received under Rule 173L for production of the goods falling under the same class of goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) in respect of the issues at page 6 of the Order-in-Appeal. He submits that the refund of the said amount to the assessee is legally due and properly permitted by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide her order dated 15-10-1999. 4. I have heard both the sides. I find that there is a lot of force in the arguments advanced by ld. consultant. If the department was in doubt with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
