2017 (10) TMI 500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Central Excise. 2. As the issue involved in all these appeals is common and also arising of the common impugned order, therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Following is the details relating to the period and the amount of refunds sanctioned: Sl. No. Period Amount Sanctioned 1 October 2006 Rs.17,81,085/- 2 November 2006 Rs.15,48,696/- 3 December 2006 Rs.10,66,247/- 4 February 2007 Rs.9,88,978/- 5 April 2007 Rs.6,38,421/- 6 June 2007 Rs.5,62,922/- 7 August to September 2007 Rs.42,60,461/-   Total Rs.1,08,46,810/-   3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are 100% Export Oriented U....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt appeals viz., whether the process carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture and as such, they are eligible for credit and secondly, whether the department can reopen a case of refund by way of issuing show-cause notices without challenging the order sanctioning refund. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) in para 9 of the impugned order has only observed whether the process carried out by them amounts to manufacture and this issue has been discussed by the Commissioner of Customs (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No.138/2008 dated 31.10.2008 in appellant s own case wherein it has been held that the goods in question was not a manufactured product and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to avail input stage credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....* CC vs. Gokak Mills: 2006 (206) ELT 562 (Tri.-Bang.) 6. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that there is no need to challenge the refund order and the Revenue can recover the refund by issuing the show-cause notice if the same has been sanctioned erroneously. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that this Tribunal vide its Final Order No.20489-20500/2017 dated 20.4.2017 has already accepted the appeal of the present assessee by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No.138/2008 dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner (A) and has held that the mining activity amounts to manufacture and is liable for payment of ex....