2018 (4) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeals is identical, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The details of all the three appeals are given below: - Appeal No. period Demand Refund  claimed E/21595/2017 10/2013 to 09/2014 10/2014 to 12/2014 Rs.7.60.557/- Rs. 2,58,632/- Rs.7.60.557/- Rs.2,58,632/- E/21594/2017 01/2015 to 12/2016 Rs.17,87,978/- Rs. 4,18,810/- -- -- 321593/2017 01/2016 to 03/2016 04/2016 to 06/0216 07/2016 to 09/2016 Rs. 99,740/- Rs. 2.23.508/- Rs. 2,59,329/- Rs.99,740/- Rs.2.23.508/- Rs.2,59,329/- 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of agricultural machinery parts falling under Chapter sub-heading 8432909....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....again confirmed as demand and thus the demand of Rs. 5,82,577/- for the period between 01/2016 to 09/2016 is duplicated.   4. Heard both the parties and perused records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the appeals is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and the law in proper perspective. He further submitted that the refund claim is squarely covered   by Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 inasmuch as it is lying untutilised and accumulated on account of export of entire production. He further submitted that even if the products were chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty upon clearance to DTA, the assessee would be eligible to claim refu....