TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant cannot be accepted. In Appeal No. E/1544/2010, it is observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants had not contested the demand of ₹ 6,99,436.00/-. I find that the appellant contested the demand of the said amount by filing the refund claim. The appellant contended that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of H.M.T. (2008 (10) TMI 54 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) held that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Table Kitchen and Household Article and parts thereof. There was a dispute of classification and exemption notification. The appellant paid duty under protest. Ultimately, the matter was decided by the order of the Tribunal dated 23-04-2009. The appellant filed the refund claim for the duty paid under protest from 23-09-2003 to 25-05-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustment of ₹ 6,99,436.00/- before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, dated 06.03.2010 Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, against which the appellant filed appeal No. E/535/2010. 3. In the mean time, the appellant also filed a refund claim of amount of ₹ 6,99,436/- as erroneously paid by them at the instance of the Department. It has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant contended that they have utilized the Cenvat Credit for payment of duty of the final product. The Learned Advocate submits that on 27.05.2009 the Cenvat account balance was nil. There is no reason for reversal of the credit. He strongly relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of H.M.T. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula 2008 (232) E.L.T. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of applicability of the Larger Bench decision. Hence, it is appropriate the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh after considering the submission of both the cases. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set-aside except refund amount of ₹ 7,496.00/- as already allowed. The matters are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
