TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Rules. The monthly duty liability of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ength 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 Fund on the ground that the same is hit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 work basis, they would not be eligible for refun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 appellant at the monthly rate determined on the bas....