2000 (9) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner Division, Kota. 2.The related proceedings finally settled in the CEGAT Final Order No. 700/98-A, dated 4-5-1998 in which the demand of Rs. 30,621.60 was set aside. The second proceedings were settled by CEGAT Final Order No. A/223/98-NB, dated 15-4-1998 in which the demand of Rs. 24,718.88 was set aside but the demand of Rs. 31,587.34 was confirmed. The CEGAT also set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. 3.In pursuance of the above Orders of CEGAT, the appellants filed refund claims of Rs. 30,621.60 on 3-6-1998 and another claim of Rs. 26,718.88 on 12-5-1998. 4.The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice dated 20-7-1998 and 30-6-1998 in two cases calling upon them to show cause why the relevant claims made by them should not be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heard Shri Ramesh Singh, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR for the respondents. The ld. Advocate for the appellants apart from relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mafatlal (supra) further placed reliance in the Tribunal decision in M/s. General Engineering Works v. CCE, Jaipur - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 86 (T). Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR reiterated the findings of the lower appellate authority. 8.I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is observed that Commissioner (Appeals) has stated in his order that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries specially paras 83 and 107 make it clear that duty deposited by the party by pursuing the appellate remedy can itself n....