9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tarafdar, Advocate & Sri S. Dutta, Advocate for the Respondent (s) ORDER The facts of the case in brief are that the Respondent herein M/s. Panitola Tea Estate submitted a claim of eligibility in terms of Notification No. 33/99-CE dated-08.07.1999 covering the period from 8/7/1999 to 28/2/2003. They claimed exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty (CED) paid through the account Current on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund has been sanctioned erroneously. In the meantime, the Department also filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Authority which was rejected vide the impugned order dated 12/9/2007. Against the impugned order, Department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. D.R. reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that changes in working capacity would not lead to change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intendent had mentioned in his verification report dated 28/9/2006 that there has been expansion in the factory during the period from 2/1/1998 to 15/3/1999 and on verification of the ground plant, he found that it tallied with the papers regarding construction of Withering Trough, Expansion of Floor, Fermenting area of the factory. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal record.&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the Refund Sanctioning Authority had taken into account the Verification Report dated 28/09/2006 of the Range Supdt. and had himself conducted spot verification alongwith the Divisional staff. In the order dated 28/09/2006, the Refund Sanctioning Authority has recorded itemwise /sectionwise increase/addition /alteration. The eligibility order itself states that there was no increase in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E dated 8/7/1999. The Department's contention of production activity without obtaining the valid Industrial License has no merit. We find that it has been consistently held in various decisions that substantial benefits can not be denied on extraneous grounds. 7. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and the same is hereby sustained. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
