TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avor of appellant. - E/2344/2009-EX[SM] - A/70545/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 26-5-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri D. H. Nadkarni, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is filed by M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No.105-CE/LKO/2009 dated 11/05/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant - M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of Yeast. Yeast was fully exempted through Notification No.3/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006. on 07/03/2006 Officers of Central Excise Division, Sitapur visit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant were not entitled to said Cenvat credit and therefore, rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 18/07/2008 the appellant preferred appeal Commissioner (Appeals). The Ids Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal No.105-CE/LKO/2009 dated 11/05/2009. The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by appellant holding that the refund claim filed by the appellant was filed after expiry of one year from the relevant dated and therefore the said refund claim was hit by limitation. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal dated 11/05/2009 appellant has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the Id. Counsel for the appellant, who has submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o them. Therefore, they are entitled to the said refund. 4. Heard the submissions of the Id. D.R., who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11/05/2009. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find that through above stated Final Order No.70096/2017 dated 16/01/2017 this Tribunal has held that the appellants were entitled to Cenvat credit of ₹ 48,90,461/- that was involved in the inputs lying in the stock and inputs in work in progress and inputs in the final product lying in the factory as on 28/02/2006. Therefore, I find that the amount of ₹ 47,49,715/- paid under protest by appellant on 22/03/2006 was not towards any duty adjudged against the appellant by any compet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
