2017 (5) TMI 1331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....outlets. The original authority held that erection charges should be a part of transaction value and confirmed demand of duty. On appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) took a contrary view and subsequent to this, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund of duty paid by the respondent amounting to Rs. 3,04,230/-. However instead of paying the amount in cash, he ordered for the same to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. This order was challenged before Commissioner(Appeals) by the respondent who allowed the appeal and ordered for the refund amount to be paid in cash. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Jt. Commissioner(AR) for the Revenue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the same was not reimbursed by M/s. IOCL. Accordingly he prayed that refund is required to be paid in cash as held by the Commissioner(Appeals). He also placed reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CIMMCO Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [1999(107) ELT 246 (Tri.)]. 6. The original dispute was pertaining to the payment of excise duty on the total contract value including the goods as well as the services of installation. The differential duty was paid by the respondent as per the demand of Revenue. However issue stands settled in favour of the respondent that no excise duty liability will arise on the installation cost received by the appellant from M/s.IOCL. The present dispute is with reference to the consequential refunds claime....