9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Explosives classifiable under Sub-heading 3602.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were supplying explosives to a subsidiary of M/s. Coal India Ltd. on the basis of provisional price of Rs. 14,144/- per M.T. Subsequently, price was finalized at a lower rate i.e. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 (Tribunal). 3. Learned representative on behalf of the respondents reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He relied upon the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal, reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 97. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondent is a manufacturer of explosives and supplied the same to Northern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply at the same rate provisionally. Such supply was made provisionally for the impugned period from 1-7-2003 to 29-2-2004. However, it is not in dispute that the contract was renewed for this period for supply @ Rs. 13,282/- PMT and that the appellants have paid back the excess amount and excess duty to M/s. CIL. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority allowing the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomers adjusted the excess amount in the subsequent Bills and certificate was also submitted. Hence, the case laws cited by the learned D.R. is not applicable in the present case. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
