9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Durairaj , Advocate For the Appellant Mr. M. Ambe , Deputy Commissioner ( A. R ) For the Respondent ORDER ORDER : Per Ms. SULEKHA BEEVI C. S. Brief facts are that appellant was a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Blankets, Throws, Sheets etc. They had imported capital goods and raw materials / consumables without payment of duty under Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dt. 31.03.2003 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.55,64,436/- was sanctioned as refund but was ordered to be taken as recredit. The said order was passed by the refund sanctioning authority on 21.08.2012. Against such order the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No.3/2013 dt. 31.1.2013 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the refund claim. 3. Thereafter vide order dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to recover erroneously sanctioned refund of Rs.55,64,436/-. The said proceedings had culminated in dropping the proposals in the show cause notice as per OIO No.13/2023 dt.29.09.2023. Therefore, the contention of the department that the credit is not eligible and that appellant is not eligible for refund by way of cash cannot be sustained. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. Ld. A.R S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2012. Hence, in terms of the Hon'ble CESTAT Order, the amount claimed by the claimant assessee is eligible to be refunded. 21. In view of the above facts and findings, I am constrained to hold that the credit of duty paid on the inputs under Notification No.22/2023 CE dated 52/2003 CUS (to the extent of CVD) indigenously procured and imported respectively lying in stock at the time of de-bondin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
