TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the law in this case. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - E/1791/2010 - A/10182/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 4-1-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Honble Member (Judicial) For the Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Adv. For the Respondent: Dr.J.Nagori, Addl.Commissioner (A.R.). Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. COMMR.(A)/195/VDR-I/2010, dt.30.08.2010, vide which the first appellate authority has set aside the Order-in-Original which rejected the refund claim of the assessee for an amount of Rs.2,14,889/- and Rs.1,36,812/- in respect of interest. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of glass-lines equipments falling under Chapter No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was filed before first appellate authority, who set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. 4. Ld. D.R would submit that the first appellate authority has erred in holding that the assessee had filed a refund claim of Rs.9,17,954/- on the basis of Tribunals order dt.30.01.2008. It is his submission that that the Order-in-Appeal has wrongly considered the Tribunals order dt.30.01.2008. It is his submission that that the first appellate authority had wrongly held that the issue is settled by virtue of Tribunals order dt.30.01.2008, whereas the fact of the matter is that Revenue has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and preferred an appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided by the undersigned is that the duty amount and interest which was paid earlier is to be allowed as refund or otherwise. 8.2 In the instant case, the Tribunal has settled the issue of process of re-glass lines of old and used cylinders does not amount to manufacturer vide Order No.A/162/WZB/AHD/2008, dt.30.01.2008. 8.3 On the strength of the above said order, the refund claim of Rs.9,17,954/- was filed by the appellant. The above said duty and interest was deposited/paid as follows:- S.No PLA No./Date Debit amount of Total Amount Basic Edu. Cess Interest Total 1 22/24.12.05 1,50,000 3,000 - 1,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms. 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that the assessee herein had paid the amount through PLA, after verifying the fact that the said amount has been paid through PLA. It is also seen that once the Tribunal has held that the activity is not amounting to manufacture and is not being upturned by higher judicial fora, the amount which has been paid to pursue the appeal before the higher judicial fora, needs to be refunded to the assessee, is the law which has been settled. I find that the first appellate authority has correctly followed the law in this case. 8. In view of this, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order of the first appellate authority. 9. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
