9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espective amounts within six weeks from today and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) forthwith, whereupon the latter shall dispose of the appeals on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit and in accordance with law, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Both the appeals stand allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No: E/1838 & 2894/2011 - Final Order Nos. 25168-25169/2013 - Dated:- 7-3-2013 - SHRI P. G. CHACKO AND SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Lalit Mohan Chandna, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: P. G. Chacko These applications filed by the appellants seek waiver and stay in respect of the respective ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bid. The present appeals are directed against the orders of the appellate Commissioner. 4. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that the focus of debate is on the terms of Notification No.214/86-CE. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that, in the scheme of the above notification, the raw material supplier need not have a factory. The proposition is that the said scheme itself is meant for a person without factory who would like to have excisable goods manufactured through job workers. These arguments have been vehemently contested by the learned Superintendent (AR) who also points out that, in a case of another job worker of the second appellant, this Bench directed pre-deposit of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above notification need not have a factory. Therefore the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the cited decisions is misplaced. Before the lower appellate authority, these applicants ought to have made reasonable pre-deposits. 6.1 The CENVAT credit denied to the second appellant is to the extent of Rs.22.6 lakhs. The learned counsel has submitted that, as they had supplied the finished goods to SEZ units during the material period, they claimed refund of the unutilized CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs.19 lakhs. It is submitted that this refund claim was rejected by the original authority and its decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and further that the appeal filed against the appellate Commissioners order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
