2000 (11) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is similar to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions : - (i)      Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (ii)     M/s. Smithkline Beecham Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (Final Order No. 852/99 -C, dated 16-9-99) (iii)    Needle Industries India Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 286 (iv)    C.C.E., Meerut v. M/s. Steel and Metal Tubes (I) Ltd. - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1201 (T) (Final Order No. 7/2000-A dated 13-1-2000) (v)     C.C.E. v. M/s. TVS Suzuki Ltd. - 1999 (34) RLT 668 (T) (vi)    M/s. GKN Invel Transmissions Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi (Final Order No. 694/200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such a writ or suit is entertained and is allowed/decreed, then any refund claim arising as a consequence of the decision in such appeal or such other proceedings, as the case may be, would be governed by Section 11-B. It is also made clear that if an independent refund claim is filed after the final decision under Rule 9-B(5) re-agitating the issues already decided under Rule 9-B - assuming that such a refund claim lies - and is allowed, it would obviously be governed by Section 11B. It follows logically that position would be the same in the converse situation." 3. He also drew our attention to the finding portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) as appeared in internal page 3 of the said order is as follows :- "The facts of this present ....