2017 (1) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epartment Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent (s) Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar: The above stated two appeals are filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal Nos.186-187/CE/Noida/2008 dated 30.12.2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Computer Monitors. The provisional assessment for the financial years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were finalized .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the said amount should be credited to their Cenvat Account. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue preferred appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). 3. The grounds of appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) were that it appeared to Revenue that above said both appeals were not legal and proper in the absence of examination of unjust enrichment issue with respect to the accounts and. Balance-s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal. 4. Heard the Ld. DR for Revenue. He has reiterated the grounds, which is the repetition of grounds before the First Appellate Authority. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that once the order for finalization of assessment is issued and it is accepted by the Department, then department cannot question the quantum of refund arising out of it after filing of the refund .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X