2019 (5) TMI 1341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mahar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate, Ms. Krati Singh, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, AR ORDER PER. AHSOK JINDAL Both sides are in appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee-respondent is manufacturer of excisable goods, namely, Lehar Kurkure, Cheetos, Wheels, etc. and was classifying the said goods unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication No.5/99. The said order was challenged by the department before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appeal of the department was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order its dt. 26.7.2011 reported at 2012 (286) ELT A152 (SC). Consequent to that, the assessee-respondent filed refund of duty paid under protest on 25.7.2012. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee-respondent on 14.09....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner vide its order dt.25.6.2014 sanctioned the refund but directed the refund to be appropriated against the demand confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.84-87/CE/CHD-II/2012 dt.8.8.2012 in the spice mix matter. 4. The assessee-respondent filed appeal against the said appropriation before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the order of appropriation of refund. Against the said order, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this case is 25.07.2012 within one year, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. 6. He further submits that the appropriation of refund claim is not justified as against the order dt.8.8.2012 which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt.17.11.2014 was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal set aside the demand reported at 2015 (324) ELT....