2009 (7) TMI 1054

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondent. ORDER The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Explosives classifiable under Sub-heading 3602.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were supplying explosives to a subsidiary of M/s. Coal India Ltd. on the basis of provisional price of Rs. 14,144/- per M.T. Subsequently, price w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aipur, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (Tribunal). 3. Learned representative on behalf of the respondents reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He relied upon the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal, reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 97. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondent is a manufacturer of expl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-8-2003, CIL requested them to continue supply at the same rate provisionally. Such supply was made provisionally for the impugned period from 1-7-2003 to 29-2-2004. However, it is not in dispute that the contract was renewed for this period for supply @ Rs. 13,282/- PMT and that the appellants have paid back the excess amount and excess duty to M/s. CIL. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lo....