9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eave granted. 3. The short question which, arises in these appeals is whether the appellants - M/s. Southern Asbestos Industries, M/s. Sree Balaji Industries and M/s. Saritha Industries are entitled to refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, consequent upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited v. Union of India reported in 1995 (78) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the operations from its predecessor, they were not entitled to claim refund. 5. The difficulty has arisen in these cases because before the Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that the appellants had taken over the mining operation from erstwhile Corporations and therefore they were entitled to take advantage of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors and' not subsidiaries of Andhra Asbestos Corporation. We, accordingly, directed the petitioners to amend the SLP. When the amendment application was moved the appellants stated that they are Sub-Contractors. However, when the matters come for final hearing, on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), learned counsel has urged that the appellants herein are not Sub-Contractors but C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rstwhile Corporation. Accordingly, liberty is being granted to each of the appellants before us to amend their pleadings, file appropriate documents, if so advised, within six weeks from today. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. All contentions on both sides are expressly kept open.
8. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
