9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 9/2006 (H-II) C.E. dated 28-2-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. 2. Shri V.J. Sankaram, learned advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddi, learned JDR for the Revenue. 3. Heard both sides. 4. This issue is being agitated by the appellants right from the year 1996. The appellants took Modv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequential relief. The appellants applied for refund of the amount of Rs. 20,59,373/-. The Original Authority in his order dated 1-11-2005 sanctioned refund of Rs. 16,41,737/-. However, the balance amount was not sanctioned on the ground that the appellant was not able to produce the proof of payment. On this ground, the refund of balance amount was rejected. The appellants approached the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that the refund has been rejected purely on the ground that the appellants were not in a position to produce proof of payment of the amount paid by them. 7. On a very careful consideration of the matter, I find that the fact that the appellants had paid the duty is clearly recorded in Para 10 of the show cause notice issued by the department. The relevant extract of Para 10 of show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r statements given before the said officers. Since the fact of payment has been recorded by the department in the show cause notice and also in the Order-in-Original mentioned supra, the rejection of an amount of Rs. 4,17,636/- on the ground that the appellant did not produce proof of payment is not sustainable. There is no merit in the impugned order. I allow the appeal with consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
