2008 (12) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondents herein, are the manufacturers of excisable goods viz Polymer Films falling under Chapter Heading 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 5. They filed refund claims for Rs. 57,313/- and Rs. 1,12,254/-. The claims were towards the refund of interest paid at the time of finalization of the provisional assessment. It was contended that the interest would commence from the date of finalization under Rule 7 (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 after the expiry of one month from the date on which the amount was determined. The duty was paid prior to the Order of finalization under Rule 7 (4) and hence the interest paid was actually not payable. 6. Apparently, the claims were not correct in as much as it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad on the ground that when the case of M/s. MSEB, Pole Factory has not attained finality in as much as the Department has preferred an appeal before the High Court against the CESTAT Order dated 9-5-2005 in respect of M/s. MSEB, Pole Factory. The appeal of the Department has been admitted by the High Court and is still pending decision. Therefore, the action of the Assistant Commissioner was found premature. 10. The Departmental appeals against the said Orders-in-Original both dated 25-1-2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner were decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Orders-in-Appeal both dated 30-8-2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) Aurangabad, rejec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Count judgment in the case of C.CE, Aurangabad v. Balakrishna Industries reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Rich Kwality Products Ltd. reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T. 382 (Tri.-Mumbai) in support of his contention that there is no challenge in the 'Grounds of Appeal' of the Revenue on merit and hence the orders of the lower authorities below need to be upheld. 14. I have considered the rival submissions very carefully. I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel of the respondents. The Revenue has all along contended in their 'Grounds of Appeal', both before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, that they have not accepted the Tribunal decision in the ....