9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling refund claim before the lower authorities stating that the demand in the show-cause notice included wrongly an amount of 11,12,503/- is an unacceptable proposition by any stretch of imagination - appeal rejected - decided in favor of Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority after following due process of law rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred to first appellate authority who also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the factual matrix of the case and submits that the demand which was confirmed against the appellant consist of bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 11 (AP), Laxmi Starch Ltd. Vs. UOI 1993 (67) ELT 769 (AP), Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2003 (145) ELT 502 (SC). 5. The learned AR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. On perusal of the records, I find that the appeal of the assessee appellant is devoid of merits for more than one reason. 6.1 Firstly, it is undisputed that show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents raised in the grounds of appeal are also not acceptable for the simple reason that the entire arguments were directed on the point that Revenue has kept the amounts which they are not required to. This portion of the argument is rejected summarily as the appellant never contested that the demand in the show-cause notice was not properly quantified before the lower authorities or even before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
