2018 (11) TMI 1507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty which was not required to be paid by Unit-I. In that circumstances, Unit-I is entitled to claim refund of the excess amount paid by Unit-I which is not the duty. Further, if Unit-II has taken excess credit of duty paid by Unit-I and the respondent is same, therefore, it is a revenue neutral situation. Also, the refund claims have already been sanctioned and which has not been challenged by the Revenue, therefore, in the absence of challenge thereto, the proceedings against the Respondent is not sustainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Represented by: For Appellant (s): Shri Atul Handa, AR For Respondent (s): Shri B. L. Narshiman, Ms. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the proceedings against the Respondent. Against the said order, Revenue is before us. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that in this case Unit-I has paid excess duty to avail excess inadmissible refund of duty paid in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, therefore, the impugned orders are to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that in this case, refund claims have already been sanctioned to the respondent and without challenging the same, proceedings against the respondent are not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gauahati High Court in the case of CCE vs. Jellapore Tea Estate-2011 (268) ELT 14 (Gau.). Further, it is his sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (340) ELT 83 (P&H). We hold that entire excise is revenue neutrality, therefore, no demand is sustainable against the respondent and the refund claim cannot be denied. 7. We further take a note of the fact that the refund claims have already been sanctioned and which has not been challenged by the Revenue, therefore, in the absence of challenge thereto, the proceedings against the Respondent is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gauahati High Court in the case of CCE vs. Jellapore Tea Estate (supra). In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned orders, the same are upheld. 8. In result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in the Court)
Case laws, D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X