9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri V.J. Sankaram, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: P.V. Subba Rao.] 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.62/2010 (H-I) CE dated 30.08.2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The respondent herein is a Public Sector Undertaking and has outsourced some part of their work to M/s CST Ltd. The work which they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund. The department filed an appeal against this Order-in-Original and it was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.24/2009 (H-I) D-CE dated 09.09.2009 and the matter was remanded back to the lower authority for 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 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not entitled to credit of the duty paid by M/s CST. (c) There is no provision in the Central Excise Act and Rules that say a manufacturer can request the refund to be sanctioned in favour of the buyer of the goods. 5. It is therefore prayed to set aside the impugned order. 6. We have considered the arguments on both sides. The first issue to be decided is whether M/s BHEL (respondent herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey were not required to and the respondent herein had borne the burden of the duty, 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 The second question to be decided is whether Notification No.6/2002-CE was rescinded on 0103.2006 and if so whether the ratio of the order of the Tribunal applies to the clearances made during the relevant period (February, 2007 to April,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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
