2012 (7) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ants states that the original authority had sanctioned the impugned refund amount applying the Notification No.41/2007 as applicable on the date of filing the refund claim. On the date of filing the refund claim, the amended notification allowed refund between 8% and 10% of the FOB value. His order has been revised by the Jurisdictional Commissioner holding that refund is admissible only @ 2% of F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isions :- 1. Kartar Rolling Mills Vs CCE New Delhi 2006 (197) EL T 151 (SC) 2. CC, Bangalore Vs Spice Telecom 2006 (203) ELT 538 (SC) 3. Karvembu & Co. Vs Under Secretary, Dept. of Revenue 2010 (20) STR 591 (Mad.) 3. After considering the submissions from both sides and perusal of the case records as also the cited decisions, I find that the impugned Notification No.41/07 is a different kind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecedent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Faizan Shoes (supra) has extended the beneficial provisions incorporated in the original notification by way of amendment which is also in line with the circular issued by the Board to the same effect, there is no reason to take a different view in this case. Hence, in my considered view, the original authority's order required no interference. Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X