TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (6) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent. [Order]. - This stay petition filed by the Revenue seeks stay of the operation of the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-10-1999 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which permits refund of Rs. 2,65,094.21 which was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner vide his order dated 4-9-1996. 2. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR, reiterates reasoning contained in Order-in-Original of the Asstt. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as contained in the Order-in-Original dated 4-9-1996. 3. Shri P.R. Biswas, ld. Consultant, while countering the arguments of the ld. JDR admits the fact that a different variety of goods were manufactured, but claimed that they belong to the same class of goods. As per clause (iii) of sub-rule 3 of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, It is permissible to use the goods received u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e document. The ld. consultant fully supports the reasoning given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the issues at page 6 of the Order-in-Appeal. He submits that the refund of the said amount to the assessee is legally due and properly permitted by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide her order dated 15-10-1999. 4. I have heard both the sides. I find that there is a lot of force in the....