9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. M/s. Manjara SSK Ltd. Vilaspur, Latur (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) are the manufacturer of Sugar falling under Ch. H. 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee had filed refund claim of Rs. 5,27,736/- for the reason that by release order No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 4. While deciding the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that it is not disputed that the entire quantity of sugar covered in said sugar release order dated 28-10-98 had been sold out by the claimant to the FCI. The net duty paid by FCI on entire quantity of 15,992 bags (qtls) was @ Rs. 52 per bag/qtls. When the difference of Rs. 33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes and as per the practice, sugar is supplied to the FCI Solapur, The assessee presents the Bills to the F.C.I. and receives the payment from them. While claiming the bills, the assessee claims the bills not release order-wise, but the remaining quantity of the earlier order and some quantity of the present release order is included. Payment by the F.C.I. is made by including the quantity of two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the factory, and not passed on to any body. F.C.I, being the Government of India Undertaking, the letter issued by them should have been accepted by the Revenue in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. 9. The impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable. The same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Cross-objections are also disposed of accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
