9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the duty. Whether M/s CST had paid duty in excess considering that the N/N. 6/2002-CE was already rescinded during the relevant period? - Held that:- The first appellate authority in the impugned order has clearly considered this issue and recorded that the Notification No.6/2002-CE was rescinded but an identical Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 was issued and M/s CST was squarely covered by Sl.No.91 of this notification - there is no reason to hold that M/s CST had not paid excess duty or that the respondent herein cannot claim refund of the same. Appeal dismissed. - Appeal No. E/2684/2010 - A/30985/2018 - Dated:- 20-8-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh examination. The lower authority issued fresh show cause notice proposing to reject the claim and vide Order-in-Appeal No.120/2009-10 (R) (denovo) dated 03.02.2010 rejected the refund. The respondent herein preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who, vide the impugned order, set aside the order of the lower authority and held that the appellants were eligible for refund. The present appeal by revenue against the impugned order is on the following grounds: (a) The refund claim is not a consequence of the order issued by the Hon ble CESTAT which was passed with respect to Notification No.6/2002 as this notification has been rescinded and was not applicable during the relevant period. (b) Under Rule 3 of CENVAT C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty, they are entitled to claim refund of the duty. The second question to be decided is whether Notification No.6/2002-CE was rescinded on 0103.2006 and if so whether the ratio of the order of the Tribunal applies to the clearances made during the relevant period (February, 2007 to April, 2007). We find that the first appellate authority in the impugned order has clearly considered this issue and recorded that the Notification No.6/2002-CE was rescinded but an identical Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 was issued and M/s CST was squarely covered by Sl.No.91 of this notification. We, therefore, find no reason to hold that M/s CST had not paid excess duty or that the respondent herein cannot claim refund of the same. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
