2014 (5) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Additional Commissioner (AR) PER : S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the refund claim of the appellant of Rs.16,350/- is rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of safety Razor Blades and Shaving System. The appellants cleared certain quantity of used Lubricating Oil w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ization of steel sheets, are not marketable commodity- appellant also relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. reported in 2003 (158) ELT 3 (S.C.) to submit that sender is not excisable goods. Hence, the rejection of refund is not sustainable. 6. The contention of revenue is that the duty has been paid by the appellant and....