9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order]. The Department has filed both the appeals against the order-in-appeal dated 24-12-2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeals of the respondents in respect of the refund of the duty. 2. The relevant facts for my consideration are : the respondents had cleared the goods to their customers on payment of duty, but subsequently, it was found by them that there was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) v. C.C.E., Bhopal, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 694 (LB-T). In view of this, she submits that the appeals have to be allowed. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned DR and perused the records. I find that the respondents had filed the refund claim on the ground that they had paid the excess duty mistakenly and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was delivered on 17-2-2003. Since the Larger Bench decision was delivered much before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), he should have considered the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench. It is not clear from the order, whether the said decision was cited before the Commissioner (Appeals) or not. In absence of any such indication in the order-in-appeal, I am unable to hold that the order-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
