9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29-12-2005 which allowed refund claim filed by the respondent. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellants, an 100% EOU were procuring LDO without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 1/95, dated 4-1- 1995. The learned Commissioner (A) in an earlier order allowed an appeal as to procurement of LDO without payment of duty. During the period of dispute the respondent procured LDO under f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urement of LDO in terms of Notification No. 1/95. The denial of such benefit was held as incorrect by the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/54 & 55/04, dated 21-6-2004. It is on record that the Revenue has not preferred appeal against the order dated 21-6-2004. If an assessee has procured the LDO on payment of duty during the pendency of appeal, when the assessee is not required do s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Invoices dated 2-3-2003, 26-11-2002, 14-8-2002 & 18-4-2002, which were not subject matter of Order- in-Appeal. The refunds were filed applying the ratio of the decision given by Commissioner (Appeal). The refund has been rejected on the grounds of limitation and since they were not covered by the Order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in their favour. 2. I observe that when the issue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal or not. 3. It is only proper that all the duty paid during the period when the issue was under litigation be refunded to the appellant when the ratio of the appellate authorities decision is in their favour. 4. I also find that the claims are not barred by limitation since the reason for claiming refund arose only on account of the Order-in-Appeal in their favour. I find that the Order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
