2005 (4) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund application was rejected on the ground that the appellant surrendered registration in November 2000, therefore, the refund is not admissible. 3. The contention of the appellants is that they were paying duty on fortnightly basis. The appellant on 13-10-2000 paid duty of Rs. 1,24,218/- from the Cenvat credit along with othe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me Commissionerate and this unit has paid duty through PLA on realizing the mistake, therefore, they are entitled for the refund. The appellant also submitted that they are not asking for cash refund but they are asking only reversal of the credit to the extent that they had paid wrongly in October 2000 which was subsequently paid through PLA on 6-1-2001. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tances, as the appellants are working in the same range, therefore, the impugned order saying that the registration is surrendered and appellants are not entitled for refund in cash is not sustainable and set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Dict .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X