2016 (10) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th under Notification No. 33/99-CE is an independent claim required to be filed under the exemption notification. Whether each of such a refund claim filed by the appellant is admissible has to be seen only at the time of deciding that refund claim - appeal disposed off - decided against assessee.
Shri H. K. Thakur, Member (Technical) And Shri P. K. Choudhary Member (Judicial) Shri S. P. Majunder, Advocate of the Appellant Shri. J. Bose, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIO No. 114/CE (A)/GHY/07 dated 20/11/2007 passed by CC & CE (Appeals) Guwahati as first appellate authority. Under this OIA dt 20/11/2007 first appellate authority has allowed the appeal filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AR thus strongly defended the order passed by the first appellate authority. 4. Heard both sides & perused the case record. The issue involved in this appeal is whether or not first appellate authority has correctly modified the OIA dt 16/11/2006 passed by the Adjudicating authority. It is observed from the case records that adjudicating authority vide OIO dated 16/11/2000 passed following order:- " In view of the above and relying upon the judgment reported in 1999 (109) ELT 292 (Tribunal) It is found that Shree Krishna Food Products Ltd is a new industrial unit which commenced their commercial production w.e.f. 01.06.2000 and is found to be eligible for the exemption contained in the Notification No. 33/99 CE dated : 08/07/1999 as ame .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bject matters of the proceeding before the lower authorities and are not required to be answered by the bench. It is also observed that one time eligibility can not give license to the appellant to get refund for all the periods before & after 16/11/2006 because refund for each month under Notification No. 33/99-CE is an independent claim required to be filed under the exemption notification. Whether each of such a refund claim filed by the appellant is admissible has to be seen only at the time of deciding that refund claim. Accordingly, it is held that the modification made by the first appellate authority was unwarranted and is required to be set aside. 5. Appeal filed by the appellant is disposed off in view of the observations made in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X