9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of re-rolled products of Iron/Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. They are paying Central Excise duty on their final product as per erstwhile Section 3A of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997. Consequent to the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore's Final Order No.2213-2214/2005 dated 09.12.2005 wherein it was held that the report of the Technical Expert has to be followed and that the adjudicating authority has completely ignored the findings of the Technical Expert especially the fact that the ACP works out to less than what has been declared by the appellant. The order of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal based on the provisional fixation of the ACP by the Commissioner of Central excise, Belgaum. He further submitted that the duty paid by the appellant in the instant case should be treated as 'Deposit of duty' and therefore the provisions of Section 11B are not applicable to such amounts while granting refund and for this he relied upon the following authorities: a) CC, Meerut V. Monnet Industries Ltd. - 2003 (56) RLT 247 (Tri.-) b) Jayanta Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. V, CCE - 2002 (50) RLT 98 (Tri.) c) Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd. V. CC - 2003 (158) ELT 767 (Tri.) d) Classic Computer Services V. Cc - 2004 (167) ELT 517 (Tri.) e) CCF V. Runlon Trades P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 11B are not applicable for refund of interest for the period prior to 11.05.2008, the amendment to the provisions of Section 11B. For this he placed reliance on the decision of Condor Power Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-IV -2011 (274) E.L.T. 387 (Tri. -Del.). 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. ITC Ltd. (supra) which was affirmed by the Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
