9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not amount to Central Excise duty - Held that: - the same issue was before the Division Bench in the appellant’s own case. Since the Division Bench has held in favour of the appellant on the same set of facts in appellant's own case AJINKYA ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III [2013 (6) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the ruling of the Division Bench is binding on me - refund a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority by impugned order set aside the order-in-original and held that the refund claim is inadmissible. Against such impugned order the assessee has preferred an appeal. 4. The partner of the appellant brings to my notice the order of the Tribunal in his own case passed on 23.06.2011 vide order No.A/491-497/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. - 2012 (281) ELT 711 (Kar.). 6. Partner of the firm submits that the order of the Tribunal in their own case by order dated 23.06.2011, which was appealed by Revenue and the same was upheld by the Hon ble Bombay High Court. Revenue has not filed any appeal against setting aside the rejection of refund and sanctioned rebate claim of the appellant herein. Hence the orders of the Division Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
