2018 (10) TMI 821

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid excess duty. Learned advocate appearing for the assessee during the course of his argument took me through the background wherein a dispute regarding classification was involved in respect of Slides and Inner Frames and the issue was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 26.11.2002 whereby the CEGAT's order was upheld. Pursuant to the above, the assessee filed application for refund before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise with respect to the excess duty paid on 'Slides' and 'Shells' for the period February 1986 to March 1994, for an amount of Rs. 87,77,432.28. (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Two only). The adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original No. 21/1999 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reason as given by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified since, according to the learned advocate, during the first round of litigation the appellate Commissioner had called for and referred to the report of Range Officer, a part of which, is extracted at pages 5 and 6 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2002. Relying on this report, the learned advocate contended that, the Department/Range Officer was convinced that the appellant had produced/provided all the requisite documents i.e. Copy of RT 12's, PLA's, TR-6 challans and further contended that, as the Range Officer had recommended refund, the reasoning given by the First Appellate Authority in the remand proceedings was not proper. Learned advocate further contended that in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith these, the learned DR vehemently contended that the appellant has in effect produced same set of the documents based on which refund has worked out and granted. The learned DR, however, fairly contended that even now if the appellant furnishes all necessary documents in support of its claim as per the direction of this Court in the first round, the same could be considered. On the appellant's plea as to the report of Range Officer referred to by the First Appellate Authority in the first round, the learned DR submits that the same having merged with the order of this Court in the first round after considering which this Court had directed the appellant to establish its eligibility for refund of that portion which was rejected, the same ....