2018 (6) TMI 1346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dt. 12/01/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has allowed the appeal and directed the original authority to sanction the refund of Rs. 1,47,24,880/- in compliance of the CESTAT Final Order No.21290/2015 dt. 04/06/2015. 2. Briefly the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....angalore vide Order-in-Original No. 1/2006 dt. 27/02/2006. Aggrieved by the said order, ITI filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 130/2013CE dt. 13/03/2013 upheld the order of ACCE and rejected the appeal filed by the ITI. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dt. 13/03/2013, ITI filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.21290/2015 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... law. He further submitted that the original authority has rightly adjusted the sanctioned refund amount against the pending demand created by Order-in-Original No. 19/2008 dt. 31/10/2008. The Revenue has mainly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal of Kolkata Bench in the case of Tisco Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in sp....