9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. This Appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.CCEA-SRT-I/SSP/239-2012-13 U/S 35A(3)- Final Order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Surat-I. 2. The short issue involved in the present case is: whether the Appellant are entitled to refund of Rs. 17,34,292/- paid in the year 1992. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of duty on PSF from the Appellant, is unsustainable. However, it is further observed that the Department was at liberty to enforce Bonds furnished by the Appellant. Consequently, the three Bonds amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 9,25,000/- and Rs. 6,04,000/-, executed by the Appellant, were enforced and they were directed to pay the Government dues; consequently, the refund claim of Rs. 17,34,292 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claim of Rs. 17,34,292/-, was appropriated against the same. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed Appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected the said Appeal. Hence, the present Appeal. 5. The ld. Consultant for the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal while observing in its order dated 30.6.2003 that the demand is not sustainable under Rule 9(2) of the erstwh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department has enforced three Bonds after furnishing the details of such Bonds and the conditions thereof appended to the Notification. The said Bonds have been appropriated against the refund amount of Rs. 17,34,292/-. The contention of the Appellant that the observation of the Tribunal in its order dated 30.6.2003 should not be followed, in my opinion, is misplaced, inasmuch as, no Appeal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
