9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides, duly represented by Shri J.N. Pikle, ld. Advocate, and Shri Arun Chopra, ld. JDR, I find that as per facts on records the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Phenol and Acetone. During the manufacture of the said products waste hydro carbon arises which the appellants used captively as fuel. The said hydro carbon was being classified under Heading 27.10 and entitled to exemption u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant subsequent to the use of the said waste. 3. They were issued a show cause notice on 23-7-98 proposing denial of refund claim on the point of time-bar, culminating in the order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner on 2-3-2000, vide which he rejected the refund claim on the point of limitation as well as on the point of unjust enrichment. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) s order referred above. I find that the refund claim was rejected earlier on the grounds of time-bar as well as for the reasons of assessee s failure to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the above Order-in-Original and directed that the refund claim may be sanctioned in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 31-1-2001, set aside the earlier order of the Asstt. Commissioner with consequential relief to the appellants. The only option available to the Revenue was either to accept Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, if they were aggrieved with the same, to file an appeal before the Tribunal. It was not open to the Asstt. Commissioner to redecide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
