9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant Shri Dattatray D Bhat, Advocate for the respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dt. 23/02/2004 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade from all the depot of the assessee while finalising the provisional assessments and further the Department submitted that the turnover tax is not valid admissible deduction as the Department has preferred a civil appeal before the Apex Court. Further the Department raised the objection that the refunds arising out of finalisation of provisional assessments are subject to the doctrine of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that refund arising out of finalisation of provisional assessment are subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Tribunal in the appellant's own case for the same period relating to another plant of the appellant has dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the identical issue by passing Final Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner(Appeals) by relying upon the following decision in the case of Bangalore Paints Ltd. Vs. CCE [2001(132) ELT 396 (T) and Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. Vs. [2001(133) ELT 196 (T)]. Further, we also find that the adjudicating has finalised provisional assessment on the basis turnover of top 10 depots. As there was no clearance from 4 depots, the assessments were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
