2011 (4) TMI 1125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant Shri Kishori Lal,   SDR for Respondents Per   B.S.V. Murthy     Both the appeals are taken up together since the issue involved is same. In both the cases, as per the directions given by the Central Excise officers after visiting them, the appellants reversed the CENVAT credit under protest. After one year when no show-cause notice was issued and when no intimation regarding the offence committed by them, the appellants took back the amount of CENVAT credit reversed by them in the CENVAT account and intimated to the department. On receiving intimation the Revenue issued a show-cause notice and commenced proceedings on the ground that the appellants should have actually filed a refund claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....09 (240) ELT A143. 9. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. Mahle Migma Ltd. 2005 (192) ELT 687 (Tri. Del) 10. CCE Surat vs. Trinetra Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (166) ELT 384 (Tri. Mum). 11. Kopran Ltd. vs. CCE Raigad - 2006 (196) ELT 99 (Tri. Mum).     When the learned Advocate was asked as to whether any contrary decision  to the decision of the Larger Bench rendered in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri. LB), he fairly admitted that he is not able to show a contrary decision on the same issue. He further submits that the appeal filed against the decision of  BDH Industries Ltd. (supra) has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. He also submitted that the dec....