TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges attributable to machined and unmachined rings. It is found that the Assistant Commissioner's order sanctioning refund on the same issue was not before either of the authorities below; thus, we are of the opinion that the matter be remanded to the Adjudicating authority for reconsideration of all issues afresh taking into consideration all the evidences placed by the Appellant before the Assistant Commissioner while claiming the refund, the evidences now produced before this Tribunal, and the evidences that would be produced during the course of denovo proceeding. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - Appeal No. E/1628/2008-DB - Order No. A/10382/2016 - Dated:- 4-5-2016 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for non-accountal of scrap rings is also upheld but the redemption fine and penalty are reduced. 4. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that after this Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating by its Order dt.25.03.1998 they had filed a refund claim on 30.09.1998 seeking refund of the duty deposited pursuant to this Tribunals Order dt.17.6.1992 in disposing their stay application. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had allowed the refund of ₹ 2,23,642.81 and ₹ 35,000.00, taking into consideration the amount involved on the unmachined rings and the differential duty paid on machined rings pursuant of to the Order of the Tribunal. It is his contention that the said order of the Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 7. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has no objection in remanding the matter. 8. We find that on the very same issue, and pursuant to this Tribunals Order dt. 25.03.1998 refund has been allowed by the Asst. Commissioner, albeit a pre-deposit refund, but, on scrutiny of the fact relating to drawing and design charges attributable to machined and unmachined rings. It is the contention of the Appellant that they had discharged duty by including the drawing and designing charges in the value of machined rings, and received refund on the remaining amount, deposited pursuant to the interim order of this Tribunal dt.17.6.1992. We find that the Assistant Commissioners order sanctioning refund on the same issue was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
