2018 (2) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondents ORDER Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 2. After hearing the Ld. Advocate Ms. D. Naveena on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, on behalf of the Revenue, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Ground Power Unit' and during the year 1993 classified the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....products during the pendency of the dispute before the higher authorities. 3. The said refund claim was originally rejected by the Asst. Commissioner on the grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment and the dispute again travelled to the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order No.107/2009 dated 20.01.2009 held that the claim was neither hit by bar of limitation nor by unjust enrichment. The said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vive. 5. The Revenue's appeal relates to the fact that as the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs, which stands utilized by them in the manufacture of the final product, which has been subsequently held as non-excisable, the refund to that extent was not permissible. In the second appeal, proceedings were also initiated against them by way of issuing a separate SC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiate their claim that the credit was not availed by them and whatever Cenvat credit was availed pertained to other final products, which were cleared on payment of duty. 7. The said plea of the appellant is relatable to the factual position and would depend upon verification and examination of the records. As such I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand both the appeals to the....