TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad dated 14-12-2001 refusing grant of refund in favour of the petitioners has been confirmed. 3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners had manufactured four automatic bag making machines. When the said machines had been cleared out of the premises of the petitioner-company, excise duty had been paid. "The said machines had been returned within a period of one year from the date of its clearance and thereafter, the petitioner-company had remade the machines which had been cleared on payment of excise duty. In the circumstances, an application for refund of excise duty had been submitted. The said application had been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, an appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aking an application for refund is incorrect. An application for refund was made by the petitioner-Company on 23-2-1998 which was received by the concerned respondent on 27-2-1998. The said fact has not only been admitted in Affidavit-in-reply but photostat of original application for refund has also been found from the record of the respondents. 7.The aforestated fact could not be disputed by Senior Standing Counsel Mr. D.N. Patel appearing for the respondents. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, CEGAT erred while dismissing the appeal. The order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8.The only other point which remains against the petitioners is that the accounts of expenses about remaking of the machines had been ren....