2007 (1) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing both the side, we find that investigations were initiated against the appellant as regards payment of duty on Aluminum Dross/Ash and Residues. During the course of investigation appellant deposited an amount of around Rs. 42 lakhs. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against them which resulted in passing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not been found by the Commissioner to be payable. As such, the appellants are entitled to the excess amount deposits by them. The law on the point that such deposits are not hit by the barred by limitation stands decided by a number of precedent decisions of the Tribunal. Reference in this regard may be made to Tribunal s decision in the case of Suri Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X