9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the table of calculation in his order which was not refuted by the appellant - there are no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. Ex/76080/2017 - FO/A/75779/2018 - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri P. Sikdar, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri K. Chowdhuri, Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order, the Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund of ₹ 1,51,660/- in terms of Paragraph 4(1) of the said Notification. The appellant filed appeal for refund of ₹ 2,45,498/- 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. The Learned D.R. in his Written Submission before the Bench stated that during the hearing, the appellant s Advocate revised the claim of ₹ 2,45, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een paid by utilizing the CENVAT Credit. The total duty payable on value addition @ 36% comes to ₹ 3,41,936/- and which is less than the amount of duty paid through PLA. It is also evident that refund of ₹ 1,90,270/- has been sanctioned to the appellant on monthly basis which is found to be less than the amount of duty payable on value addition. Therefore, I am of the considered view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
