2012 (7) TMI 879

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri I. Beg, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. - The appellant are an independent processors engaged in processing of man-made fabrics. The period of dispute in this case is from 16-12-1998 to 31-3-1999. During this period, the appellant were operating under Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gth of galleries is not included in the length of the stenters. On this basis, the appellant applied for refund claim of Rs. 51,49,298/- to the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise. The Dy. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30-1-2004 while rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 3,94,973/- held the refund of Rs. 48,24,325/- as admissible, but ordered its credit to the Consumer Welfare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cable in the case of the appellant and that the impugned order is, therefore, not correct. 4. Shri I. Beg, Sr. Departmental Representative defended the impugned order reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and emphasized that since the appellant recovered the duty whose refund is sought, from the principal manufacturer, for whom the fabrics had been processed on job w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gth of the stenter which included the length of the galleries, subsequently, the Apex Court held that the length of galleries is not to be included in the length of stenter and on this basis, the actual duty liability of the appellant became lower than the amount of duty paid by them. This has given rise to this refund claim. It is not disputed that the duty liability had been discharged by the ap....