9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGEMENT Per B.S.V. MURTHY; Appellant is undertaking job work on duty paid chassis supplied by M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. The ownership of chassis remains with M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. The appellant claims credit of duty paid after doing job work cleared the chassis on payment of duty on the assessable value declared by M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly recorded a finding- I find from the records that the claimant is carrying out body building work for which they have furnished sufficient evidence and as such the goods cleared by the claimant are not classifiable under sub-heading 87060042 but under sub-heading 87041010 as claimed by the appellant. The refund claim was rejected on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tegorical submission on the part of the appellant that Excise duty had been paid by them and M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. refused to pay the same and there is also a certificate from Ashok Leyland that they have not availed Cenvat credit. In our opinion, this is sufficient. 3. However, learned A.R. pointed out the observation of original adjudicating authority which reads as follows : &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claim. It was submitted by learned counsel that the department could have verified. Having made a promise that they would produce certificate, taking a view that the department should have done it subsequently, in our opinion, is not correct. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that prima facie, we find that the appellant may be eligible for refund, we consider it appropriate that the matter sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
