2009 (5) TMI 856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g disposed of by a common order. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are as follows : M/s. The Andhra sugars Ltd., (1st stage dealer) Chemicals & Fertilizers Division, Kovvur, West Godavari District (briefly referred to as "ASL" or "appellants") manufactures Caustic Soda, Caustic Potash, sulphuric Act, Liquid Chlorine, Hydrochloric Acid etc., falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 2815 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. The Assessee have claimed refund of Rs. 3,25,608/-vide their letter Ref: EC/CHVR/KOV/REF/SCN/07 dated 28-5-2007 and Rs. 2,16,542/- vide letter Ref. CFK/CE/2007/761 dated 30-7-2007 on the ground that C.Ex., duty paid by them is incorrect due to variance in the weighbridge at the purchaser's end and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../618/08. It is his submission that they had cleared the goods on payment of excise duty on the quantity of goods as ascertained on their weigh bridge. It is his submission that when the said goods are transported or shipped to their purchasers i.e. M/s. NALCO, the weigh bridge at NALCO showed a different weights. As per the policy, M/s. NALCO pays the appellant the value of the goods as per the weight which is ascertained in their factory premises. He would submit that they had received the value of the goods and corresponding excise duty and education cess as arrived at by M/s. NALCO for the quantity ascertained at their weigh bridges. He would also draw our attention to the certificate issued by the superintendent of Central Excise attach....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 needs to be set aside. 8. We have considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records. Both Revenue and assessee are aggrieved by the different impugned Orders on the ground that the said orders are against them. The crux of the matter is whether the refund claim filed by the assessee can be rejected on the ground that the claim is in contravention of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder as held by the adjudicating authority in both the cases and upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his OIA dated 29-2-2008 and set aside by his OIA dated 22-5-2008. 9. We find that the appellant assessee are claiming refund of the excess duty paid by them due ....