9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent : Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 06/08/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has sanctioned the refund but ordered it to deposit to Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant had filed a refund claim for Rs. 8,51,384 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue process, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who allowed the refund but credited the same to Consumer Welfare Fund. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Lucknow [2018(8) GSTL 423 (Tri. All.)] ii. Commissioner Vs. Bharat Box Factory Ltd. [2007(218) ELT 355 (P&H)] iii. Commissioner Vs. Jineshwar Malleable & Alloys [2012(281) ELT 43 (Kar.)] iv. UOI Vs. AK Spintex Ltd. [2009(234) ELT 41 (Raj.)] v. CCE&ST, Ghaziabad Vs. Bhushan Steel Ltd. [2016(340) ELT 107 (All.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther I find that on identical facts, other Commissionerates are allowing the refund under the same notification which is involved in the present case and one of such order has been placed on record. Therefore keeping in view of the facts, I am of the view that the appellants are entitled to the refund of Rs. 8,51,384/- which the appellant would pay in the account of MES as per their agreement. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
