9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the earlier round of appeal, the Tribunal set aside the demand of Rs. 1,29,09,031/- against the appellants, taking into account the reversal of entire amount of credit taken on input services amounting to Rs. 5,38,796/-. The present appeal arises from the subsequent action of the appellants taking recredit of Rs. 3,21,308/- on their own out of the said reversed amount of Rs. 5,38,796/-. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the refund claim is required to be filed instead of taking suo moto credit. He cites the following decisions in favour of his submission:- (i) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T.247 (S.C.). (ii) BDH Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner if Central Excise (Appeals)) Mumbai-I - 2008 (229) E.L. T.364 (Tri.-LB). 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the suo mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the recredit on their own. The right course of action for the appellants is to seek redressal in the appropriate higher judicial forum, if they are aggrieved by the earlier order of the Tribunal, which according to them has not granted them specific relief which they had sought in their grounds of appeal. As such, the present appeal filed by them is dismissed. The appellants are at liberty to see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
