TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R SINGH The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Herbicides, Insecticides and availing the benefit of Notification No.56/02-CE dated 14.11.2002. They cleared the goods on payment of duty and thereafter they claimed refund of the same under Notification No.56/2002-Central Excise The goods after clearance were found to be defective and were returned for remaki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under protest. He further submits that the adjudicating authority has not given any opportunity of hearing as envisaged under section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also submitted the extract from the RG-23A Part-II showing the inputs credit taken when the goods were received for remaking. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue submits that the amount has been deposited by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: 12. Insofar as the refund of Rs. 4,46,284/- is concerned, the amount had been deposited towards admitted liability of duty. Whether this is made in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Commission or the voluntary deposit, the same is towards duty payable. The appellant cannot ask for refund of the same. 4. Heard both sides and perused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been taken before the first appellate authority in the proceeding. In any event, I find that they were given personal hearing at the appellate level. From that angle, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any infirmity. I also find that the duty deposited was not mistake of fact because the appellant has been fully aware of reconciliation stat....