9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant Mr. Parashiva Murthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant viz., Precision Rubber Industries Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.3.2003 passed by Commissioner (A) of Central Excise, Bangalore-I. The impugned Order-in-Appeal ordered recovery of refund amount of Rs. 8 lakh sanctioned to the appellant vide Order-in-Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho vide his order dated 21.3.2003 allowed Department s appeal and ordered recovery of Rs. 8 lakhs from the assessee-appellant. The assessee-appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal against this order passed by Commissioner (A). 2. The appellant has been represented by the learned advocate, Shri Prithviraj Choudhary and Revenue has been represented by learned AR, Shri Parashiva Murthy. 3. Based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi: 2001 (132) E.L.T. 134 (Tri.-Del.) b. Collector of Central Excise vs. Bright Brothers Ltd.: 1991 (52) E.L.T. 385 (Tribunal) c. Best & Crompton Engg. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai: 2000 (121) ELT 272 (Tribunal-LB) 4. Learned AR reiterated the findings given by the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. He further inter alia states that CESTAT s Final Order dated 19.3.1998 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cited. 6. It is strange that the appellant instead of honouring the liability for classification of the goods under Chapter Heading 8448.00, is arguing that this classification would be valid only for prospective period. Earlier the matter was before CESTAT for deciding the classification of the goods, though appellant contended that the classification of the goods would fall under Chapter Subhe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pre-deposit cannot be refunded when there is further liability of Rs. 3,32,025/- after the classification is finalized by the Tribunal under Chapter subheading 8448.00. 6.2 We take the support for above stand from CESTAT s decisions in the case of Precision Rubber Industries Ltd. (supra) and Kirti Packaging Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court s decision in VBC Industries Ltd. (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
