9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest which was not considered in the impugned order - Held that: - as the abatement claim was considered by the adjudicating authority pursuant to the Tribunal’s order and it was allowed by crediting their PLA account. Since they could not utilize the said PLA credit, the amount in cash was sanctioned within three months of their refund application - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 5-2-2004 [2004 (178) E.L.T. 261 (Tribunal)], directed to consider the refund claim as an abatement claim under the relevant Rule and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim afresh. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner by its order dated 9-12-2011 allowed the abatement during closure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered in the impugned order. 5. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that initially instead of claiming abatement for the period of closure of the stenter, the appellant erroneously filed refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, which the Tribunal converted into the abatement claim and directed for adjudication of the claim accordingly. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
