9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i V.S.Manoj, Advocate for the Assessee ORDER Per Bench The issue involved in both the appeals being same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. The parties are referred to as assessee and department hereafter for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee M/s. Mercury Manufacturing Co. Ltd. which is a SEZ / MEPZ filed refund claimed towards duty paid on proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd sanctioned by original authority Assessee Appeal No. E/338/2011 SCN Amount of refund rejected Period of dispute No. 12/2007 dated 21.6.2007 Rs.34,29,324/- vide Order-in-Original dated 30.8.2007 9/2008 to 5/2006 6/2006 to 12.4.2007 Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection by original authority 3. The original authority sanctioned the refund claim for the period 8/2008 to 9/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product has suffered duty of excise. This being the case, the authorities below ought not to have rejected the refund. He submitted that the assessee is ready to furnish necessary documents to establish that the assessee has paid duty on the HSD procured by them. 5. The ld.AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the grounds of appeal of the department's appeal. He submitted that vide Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to support the payment of duty. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The main contention for rejection of refund for the period upto 2007 is that the appellant had not furnished necessary documents to which the ld. counsel has submitted before us that if given a chance the assessee would be able to furnish necessary documents. Taking into consideration this fact, we are of the opinion that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
