TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. C. L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. S.K. Bansal, AR Present for the Respondent: Mr. B.L. Yadav, Advocate ORDER PER: ANIL CHOUDHARY Revenue is in Appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby respondent/ assesse against the Order-in-Original denying refund of Central Excise duty, which was claimed under Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 in respect of goods exported, as the appellant being a 100% EOU was entitled to purchase the goods/ inputs duty free, under Notification No. 22/2003. 2. The brief facts are as follows:- 2.1. Briefly stated the facts involved in the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame appellants the issue has been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellants, vide Order-in-Appeal No. 170-174 (AK) CE/JPR/2016 dated 16.09.2016. An appeal preferred by the Revenue against the said order, before Hon ble CESTAT, New Delhi, has also been dismissed and the Order-in-Appeal dated 16.09.2016 has been upheld by the Hon ble Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 52885/2017 dated 10.04.2017 and this Order of the Hon ble Tribunal has not been unsettled/ stayed by the higher court of law. Hence, in view of the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.09.2017, having attained finality, I observe that the Appeal filed by the appellants are liable to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be rejected. 4. Being aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Duty paid in respect of raw materials procured from DTA units, under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 to the respondent/assesse. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the issue herein is squarely covered in favour of the respondent/ assess in their own matter, Commissioner of Customs and Excise Jaipur-I Vs Continental Engines Limited, DB Excise Appeal No. 133 of 2017 wherein vide Order dated 14.02.2018, the question before the Hon ble High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the refund of cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid in respect of raw materials procured from DTA units, under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 to the assesse and thereby mis-interpreting the provisions? The Hon ble High Court relying on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
