9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Vasudev, Jt.CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issue involved in the present case pertains to finalization of the assessments for the period from 1986 to 1998 in pursuant to the order dt. 10-3-2005 passed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. The following two questions arise in the present appeal. (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of Rs. 1,00,81,512.28/- and demanded balance payment of Rs. 37,62,721.92/-. The Asst. Commissioner rejected in toto the claim for refund of excess payment of Rs. 1,13,31,052.99/-. The Commissioner(Appeals) adjusted Rs. 37,62,721.92/- out of the excess payment of Rs. 1,13,31,052.99 and orders the balance amount of Rs. 75,68,271.07/-. 4. It is the appellant s contention that the clearances in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .)]. However, it is fairly conceded by the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant that there are conflicting decisions and a view has been taken in favour of the assessee as also against them in the following cases. View in favour of the assessee :- (a) CCE, Guntur v. Asian Peroxide Ltd. [2006 (205) E.L.T. 266]. (b) M.N.A. Mohamed Sultan Sons v. CCE, Trichy [2005 (188) E.L.T. 346 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
