2006 (2) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be very negative and unsympathetic. Various decisions are available holding that refund is to be given in cash where the assessee is not in a position to utilise the refund granted in credit account. The Commissioner (Appeals) also has not examined the issue in the proper perspective. We find that when the Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the appellants in his order dated 10-7-2003, the department, filed a stay application but the Tribunal rejected departmental request for stay. Inspite of the above fact, the department has not sanctioned the full refund due to the appellants on some pretext or the other. The entire sequence of events in this sorry episode is a sad commentary on the working of the Central Excise Department. We hope .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... speaking order, discussing the subject and therefore, he would not be going into the merits of the contention made by the appellant in their grounds of appeal. With the above observation, he dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved over the impugned order, the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri G. Shivadas learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri G. Havanur, learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Even though, the appellants were entitled for refund consequent to provisional assessment, the same was not granted to them by the Dy Commissioner. However, the appellants were successful before the Commissioner of Central Excise who in his o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .C.). (5) CCE, Bhubaneswar v. Orient Paper Mills - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 648. (6) DCM Data Products v. CCE, New Delhi - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 631. (7) CCE, Rajkot v. Deepak Vegetable Oil Industries Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 817. (8) Ashok Arc v. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 591. (9) Eicher Tractors v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 457. (10) Universal Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 862. (11) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE Bangalore, Miscellaneous Order No. 236/2005, dated 7-4-2005 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore, 2005 (191) E.L.T. 862 (T). (12) Allampally Brothers Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal) = 2005 TIOL 1024. (13) CC & CE v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn Ltd. - 2005 (190) E.L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X