9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Appellant Shri S. P. Ojha, Consultant for Respondent ORDER The present appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 185 to 188-CE/LKO/2014 dated 10/10/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Transmission E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents were issue with letters informing them for supply of required documents and on receipt of required documents, the same were scrutinized and refunds were granted to the tune of Rs. 18,45,916/-, Rs. 2,62,409/-, 4,03,383/- & 23,18,718/- through Orders-in-Original No. R/52, 04, 03, 02/RBL/2013 respectively dated 18/03/2013, 11/06/2013, 11/06/2013 & 11/06/2013. Aggrieved by the said orders Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by Revenue as follows:- (A) The respondent had not submitted the documents as required in support of their refund claim. (B) The Department has not accepted Order-in-Appeal No. 379-381-CE/LKO/2011 dated 27/08/2012. (C) The respondents have failed to prove that the duty incidence has been borne by themselv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments. We also find that Commissioner (Appeals) had already given a finding that the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment and Revenue has not brought on record through their grounds of appeal that such finding of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not tenable in law. We also find that appeal filed by Revenue against said Order-in-Appeal dated 27/08/2012, has been dismissed through above stated Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
