TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/475/2005, dated 29-12-2005 which allowed refund claim filed by the respondent. 2. The relevant facts are that the appellants, an 100% EOU were procuring LDO without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 1/95, dated 4-1-1995. The learned Commissioner (A) in an earlier order allowed an appeal as to procurement of LDO witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee is 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, is eligible for procurement of LDO in terms of Notification No. 1/95. The denial of such benefit was held as incorrect by the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/54 & 55/04, dated 21-6-2004. It is on record that the Revenue has not preferred appeal against the order dated 21-6-2004. If an assessee has procured the LDO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led in their favour. As a result the appellants filed a refund claim of duty paid on LDO procured under Invoices dated 2-3-2003, 26-11-2002, 14-8-2002 & 18-4-2002, which were not subject matter of Order-in-Appeal. The refunds were filed applying the ratio of the decision given by Commissioner (Appeal). The refund has been rejected on the grounds of limitation and since they were not covered by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f LDO by the appellants during the pendancy of appeal whether they are the subject matter in the Order-in-Appeal or not. 3. It is only proper that all the duty paid during the period when the issue was under litigation be refunded to the appellant when the ratio of the appellate authorities decision is in their favour. 4. I also find that the claims are not barred by limitation since t....