2019 (1) TMI 772

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JUDGMENT [Judgment per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. (Oral)]. - Petitioner questions the order dated 26-2-2004 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "CESTAT") in Appeal Nos. E/3693/2001 and E/3721/2001-Mum. [2004 (170) E.L.T. 224 (Tri.-Mum.)]. As the appeal filed by the department has been allowed, petitioner/assessee was expected to return to department the amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise Duty paid by it earlier at the time of supply to Railways and other customers. The claim was entertained under Rule 173L and after Appellate order, amount is also refunded to it. 4. Later on, CESTAT has on 26-2-2004 accepted the appeal of Revenue. It has found that after return of coils by Railways and other customers, there was no manufacture and hence, no occasion to levy excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T found that on second occasion, there was no exigible transaction, CESTAT ought not to have adopted a too technical view. 6. We have also attempted to find out whether there was any difference in quantum of Excise Duty paid initially when coils were sent to Railways & other customers and on later occasion, when very same coils were dispatched to other consumers. Learned advocate for respo....