9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/42345/2017 - FINAL ORDER No. 41487/2018 - Dated:- 15-5-2018 - P. DINESHA, Member (Judicial) Shri Sai Prashanth, Adv., for the appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel strips and steel tubes falling under Chapter 72 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had removed the manufactured goods to their sister units for captive consumption for further use in the manufacture. They opted for provisional assessment in respect of the said clearances since the material cost undergoes fluctuation frequently and the actual overheads could be determined on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Final Order No. 40284-40285/2016 dated 18.02.2016 rejected the appeal filed by the department. It is an admitted position by both the appellant and the department that the said order of this Tribunal has remained unchallenged. The appellants made an application for refund vide letter dated 2.05.2014 requesting for refund based on the OIA of the Commissioner (Appeals), LTU dated 02.01.2014 and the adjudicating authority vide his order dated 04.07.2014 allowed the refund claim by sanctioning refund of interest of ₹ 20,53,468/- under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals-II) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustries Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 662 (Bom.), Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune 2012 (26) STR 285 (Tri.Mum.) and the ordesr of this Tribunal in the appellant s own case for earlier/later periods viz., Final Order Nos. 40284-40285/2016 dated 18.02.2016, Final Order No. 41624/2017 dated 09.08.2017, and Final Order No. 42444-42446/2017 dated 25.10.2017. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR arguing for the Commissioner submits that the decision of BHEL Vs. CCE, Kanpur (supra) rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad is equally applicable since the Hon ble High Court has dissented from the decisions of the Hon ble Bombay High Court relied on by the appellants. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal admittedly placing reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
