2019 (12) TMI 942

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are registered for providing Business Auxiliary Service. They are also engaged in the processing of iron and steel sheets on job work basis to M/s.Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL, for short). They availed refund claim for Rs. 59,05,952/- under Section 11B of Central Excise....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt, Ld. counsel Shri S. Muthu Venkatraman submitted that the appellant is confining the contest of refund in the present appeal to one invoice which is to the tune of Rs. 47,21,090/-. The contest with regard to other two invoices is given up by the appellant since the amount has already been adjusted to the future credit of the customer. 3. Ld. counsel submitted that at the time of adjudication....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upports the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that Commissioner o(Appeals) has rejected the refund claim after examining the worksheet submitted by the appellant and therefore there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides. 7. On perusal of the order-in-original passed by the original authority, it is seen that the appellant was given date for person....