9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), for Appellant Shri S. P. Ojha, Consultant, For Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.379-381-CE/LKO/2012 dated 27/08/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent were engaged in the manufacture of Transmission Equipments. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 22/03/2011. Further the Original Authority held that the respondent paid excess Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 97,54,781/- for the Financial Year 2000-01. The respondent submitted applications for refund of above stated Central Excise duty paid by them. The refund claim of Rs. 47,88,530/- Rs. 97,54,781/- & Rs. 14,37,810/-, all were rejected through Orders-in-Original No.13-14-15/Ref/RBL/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said observations he has set aside the said three Orders-in-Original dated 07/06/2012 and allowed refund to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order Revenue is in appeal. 3. The ground of the appeal raised by Revenue is that Rule 7(6) of Central Excise Rules clarifies that the refund is subject to provisions of unjust enrichment and that in view of the specific provision in the Rule, the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords submitted before him and observed that the certificates issued by the customers indicated that the respondents were reimbursed only as much duty as was paid by respondent to the exchequer. Further, Revenue has not brought forward any reason as to why provision under Rule 7(6) of Central Excise Rules was invokable in spite of such clear finding by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Further, we al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
