2009 (7) TMI 886

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 1359 and 1360 of 1980. 2. Leave granted. 3. The short question which, arises in these appeals is whether the appellants - M/s. Southern Asbestos Industries, M/s. Sree Balaji Industries and M/s. Saritha Industries are entitled to refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, consequent upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited v.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant(s) who claims to have taken over the operations from its predecessor, they were not entitled to claim refund. 5. The difficulty has arisen in these cases because before the Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the appellants that the appellants had taken over the mining operation from erstwhile Corporations and therefore they were entitled to take advantage of the decision of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ormed that the appellants are merely contractors and' not subsidiaries of Andhra Asbestos Corporation. We, accordingly, directed the petitioners to amend the SLP. When the amendment application was moved the appellants stated that they are Sub-Contractors. However, when the matters come for final hearing, on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), learned counsel has urged that the app....