2006 (12) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - The appellants have challenged the Order-in-Appeal No. 84/2004-C.E. dated 21-4-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 3,96,679/- debited on 9-1-2002 in respect of activity of slitting of CR/HR coils into strips of smaller size on job work basis. Latter, this activity was tre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants have produced supporting evidence for causing change of cause title. The Miscellaneous Application is allowed. 3. I have heard both sides in the matter. 4. I find that the appellants had deposited the amounts during investigation. It is not a case where the duty was required to have been paid, as the activity of slitting the HR coils into smaller size was under challenge....