9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial Member Mr. B.V. KUMAR, Advocate, For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR, For the Respondent Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.1.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of telecommunication equipment which are supplied to BSNL/Department of Telecommunication (DoT) against specific orders placed on them. However, since the price is subject to changes, the appellants were permitted to clear the goods on the basis of provisional assessment during the period January 2002 to March 2002. The Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total duty paid (6+7) Rs.6,14,18,745/- 9. Difference in duty paid (8-5) (Excess) Rs.7,914/- Thereafter the appellants filed a refund claim duly supported by documentary evidence on 22.3.2011. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Palakkad vide Order-in-Original dated 30.6.2011 sanctioned the refund of ₹ 7,914/- under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 but credited the said amount to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12(C)(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), Cochin who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 16.4.2012 allowed the appeal and directed the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest in a matter which is subjudice before the Tribunal and which has not attained finality. He further submitted that it is a settled law that Department cannot adjust refunds due to appellant against demands which are disputed and are being contested before the appellate authorities, where the decisions are pending. For this submission, he relied upon the following authorities: (i) Vira Scooters vs. CCE, Ludhiana: 2010 (254) ELT 348 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Unisule Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak: 2008 (232) ELT 341 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) FCM Travel Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mysore: 2010 (18) STR 24 (Tri.-Bang.) He further submitted that in view of the ratios laid down by these decisions cited supra, the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
