9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vani, J. (Oral)]. - Appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 26-11-2008 made by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) proposing the following questions : 1. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CESTA Tribunal has erred in the eye of law in not holding that the practice adopted by the said assessee would in effect defeat the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c Tariff Area Unit? 5. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CESTA Tribunal is justified in the eye of law in holding that the goods manufactured by 100% EOU can be treated as 'the goods manufactured in India'? 6. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CESTA Tribunal is justified in the eye of law in holding that the veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d subsequently filed a refund claim for Rs. 12,61,982/- on the ground that an amount of Rs. 18,51,934/- had been paid under protest towards duty calculated in terms of Notification No. 2/95 dated 4-1-1995, whereas it was required to pay duty of Rs. 5,90,042/- only in terms of Notification No. 8/97. Pursuant to the application, show cause notice came to be issued denying the claim made by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al before the Tribunal which came to be decided by the impugned order. 4. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has accepted the submissions of the departmental representative that it was required to be verified as to whether 100% EOUs had supplied raw materials to the respondent assessee out of imported stocks. The Tribunal found that in the facts of the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned authority to inquire as to whether all the raw materials received by the respondent from other 100% EOUs were of indigenous origin or not and grant the claim of refund made by the respondent only upon such verification. In the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal in directing that the claim of the respondent be considered after verification the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
