TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. [2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/Cross/50488/2015, E/55883/2014-EX[DB] - A/57367/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 6-10-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Present Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the appellant Present Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per: V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, refund claims were filed. Such refund claims amounting to ₹ 56,90,418/- was rejected by the Original authority but the same were allowed by the Commissioner (A). Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the appellant and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent. 4. After hearing both the sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. Such certificate was considered by the Commissioner (A) to come to the conclusion that the refund was payable to the respondent. They also submitted that for an earlier period for the same respondent, the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal has held that refund is admissible as per Final Order no.56303-56304/2017 dated 21.08.2017. The Central Excise duty in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has been able to produce undertaking given by the buying unit that they have not taken cenvat credit on excess duty paid by the appellant. Moreover, the Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted to that effect. Further, I find that the appellant has written to the jurisdictional Range of Central Excise of the buying unit to certify the fact whether the buying unit has not taken cenvat c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
