9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri S.R. Prasad, learned SDR in support of the Revenue s appeal as also Shri J.N. Bhagat, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has rejected the Revenue s appeal filed against the order of original adjudicating authority vide which he has dropped the demand. 3. As per facts on record, the respondent was availing the benefit of SSI Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Machine was not properly working due to manufacturing defect. The respondent informed the jurisdictional Range Superintendent on 27-6-07 about the goods returned and asked for the refund of C.Ex. duty paid as above. The Assistant Commissioner, Division. III, Ahmedabad-I vide OIO No. 02/2007-Refund, dt. 21-8-07 sanctioned the refund of Rs. 3,70,800/- to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods or was wrongly paid. Leviability of duty arose on the manufacturer of the goods under Section 3 of the Act ibid. The said duty is collected at the time of clearance of above goods as per Rule 4 of the C.Ex. Rules, 2002. Once the duty has been collected as per Rule 4 ibid, the subject goods thereafter are brought to the factory only under Rule 16 of the C. Ex. Rules, 2002. The adjudicator ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.50 crores w.e.f. 1-4-07 vide notification No. 8/2007. He further observed that the respondent had complied with all the provisions as laid down under Rule 16 of the C.Ex. Rules, 2002. The respondent had cleared the goods on payment of duty vide C.E. Invoice No. 14/7-3-07 which has been brought back in the factory due to manufacturing defect. The respondent had submitted the original and duplicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
