TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order]. The issue involved in the instant appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the refund sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Nagpur vide Order-in-Original dated 10-4-2002 and which order has been upheld by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur vide Order-in-Appeal dated 20-5-2003, was on account of payment of duty an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-in-Appeal No. YPP/519/M-III NGP/2001 dt. 16-4-2001. Being aggrieved with the above order, the Respondents filed an appeal before the CEGAT, WZB, Mumbai for waiver of pre-deposit. The Respondents, in the meanwhile, had deposited the duty amount of Rs. 2,69,166/- vide PLA Entry No., 14 dtd. 29-6-2001 and paid the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- vide TR-6 Challan No. 23 dtd. 16-1-02. The CEGAT, WZB, Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that the Respondents have filed the refund claim within the prescribed time limit and there is no unjust enrichment involved. Further, when the CEGAT, WZB, Mumbai vide its Order dated 8-2-2002 set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 16-4-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits, the said Order-in-Appeal dated 16-4-2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
