TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply it ought to have refunded that amount to him without going into technical aspects of the matter - the interest of justice can be met with by directing respondents to treat the refund already made to petitioner as refund of Excise Duty paid by it on second supply. Accordingly amount already paid to petitioner be adjusted and there shall not be any recovery from petitioner on said count - app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S.N. Bhattad who appears for the respondents. 2. Facts show that petitioner manufactured and supplied steel coils to Railways other customers. Excise Duty was paid as per law when the coils were removed/cleared for delivery to Railways and other customers out of factory. Railways and other customers later on have returned said coils to petitioner. Petitioner thereafter cut the coil bundle i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond supply. With this finding, CESTAT then appreciated the fact that refund claim was under Rule 173L which was not attracted and also that the claim for refund was not within six months as required by Section 11B. Because of this finding as return/refund of Excise Duty was claimed under a wrong provision, the appeal of department (present respondents) has been allowed. 5. We find that responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first supply. When department found that no Excise Duty was payable for second supply it ought to have refunded that amount to him without going into technical aspects of the matter. 8. We therefore find that interest of justice can be met with by directing respondents to treat the refund already made to petitioner as refund of Excise Duty paid by it on second supply. Accordingly amount alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
