9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) ORDER This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.37/DIB/CE(A)/Ghy/12 dated 12.11.2012. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent was engaged in the production of Iron and Steel Ingots falling under Chapter sub-heading No.7206.90 of CETA,1985. During the period 02.02.1998 to 31.05.1998 they had been discharging duty under the Compounded levy scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of abatement without verification of the relevant records of closure and recommencement of production during the said period. Secondly, he has submitted that even though the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings that the Appellant is required to pay interest of Rs. 20,572.00, but simultaneously directed refund of Rs. 20,572.00, which is erroneous. 4. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Revenue has come up with the Appeal against the impugned Order on the ground that the abatement allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not supported by proper evidence, in as much as, the letters of intimation of closures and commencement of production had not been duly acknowledged by the Department. I do not find merit in the said ground after going through the copies of such lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fairly accepted that he has no evidence to establish that the interest liability of Rs. 20,572.00 was also paid by them during the course of proceedings before the authorities. In these circumstances, the Order directing refund of Rs. 20,572.00 is thus becomes erroneous and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the Revenues Appeal is partly allowed to the extent of direction for refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
