2009 (7) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Respondent. [Judgment per : S.A. Bobde, J. (Oral)]. - Heard Shri Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent. 2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in regard to the goods found at the factory of the appellant. According to the revenu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re is not even a whisper that there was any swapping of goods from the point of entry to the factory. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the credit could not have been denied to the appellant on the ground that there is discrepancy between the name of the manufacturer on the goods found at the factory and the name of the manufacturer on the documents. We find that the aforesa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd has decided the matter only on the basis of examination report which does not notice any change in the marks and name of the manufacturer. This in our view has led to an error of law apparent on the face of record inasmuch as a relevant consideration has been left out. 5. In the other appeal i.e. Central Excise Appeal No. 32 of 2008, the appellant has raised the question of refund. We fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X