2005 (9) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....K.L. Bablani, Jt. CDR and Vimlesh Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali  M., Member (T)]. - None for the appellant. Heard the learned DRs and perused the records. 2. The appellant is a subsidiary of Rallis India Ltd. Some of the goods manufactured by the appellant are sold to Rallis India Ltd. who was their distributor for the goods as well. The Department's con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al upheld the contention of the appellant on valuation and rejected its contention on classification. 3. While doing this exercise of recomputing as to how much is due and how much is to be demanded, the Assistant Commissioner noticed that a sum of Rs. 74,66,720/- was short-paid by the appellant due to wrong classification of 'armature and filled coils' during the period December 1984 to F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the excess amount (Rs. 37,60,683/-) paid by the appellant was collected by them from the customers and therefore they are not entitled for the said amount.  The Commissioner upheld the order of the lower authority on all counts. Hence this appeal. 5. The appellants in their appeal memorandum contended that the Department ought to have refunded Rs. 50 lakhs deposited by them before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fund of Rs. 50 lakhs deposited by the appellants before the CEGAT we hold that in a case where the Tribunal was disposing off the appeals both by an assessee and the Department, one in favour of the assessee and another in favour of the Department, with the direction that the duly be recomputed in accordance with its direction, the question of refund of pre-deposit would not arise as the Tribunal ....