COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. HARITHA GRAMMAR LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the Revenue challenges the Order -in -Appeal No. 97/99 (M -III), dated 13 -5 -1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai by which he has allowed the appeal of the assessee.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent -assessees manufacture motor vehicle seats. During the period from 9/91 to 2/94, they used to receive cushions from M/s. Roloform Polymers (RFP for short) under Rule 57F(3) procedure. During a visit by the officers of the Department to RFP on 8 -2 -94, it was noticed that procedure laid down under Rule 57F{3) was not strictly followed and that apart from the raw materials sent by the respondent -assessee, the RFP had utilized their own raw material without payment of duty. Thereupon proceedings were initiated against RFP and the said RFP paid a sum of Rs. 4,27,066/ - under TR 6 challan for the period from 1 -4 -93 to 26 -6 -93. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 17 -11 -95. On receipt of the said order, the respondent -assessee herein vide their letter dated 13 -3 -96 applied to the Assistant Commissioner for taking credit of the duty paid by RFP as noted above in respect of the goods supplied by them earlier without payment of duty which request was not granted by the Assistant Commissioner. The respondent -assessee sought for a speaking order on the subject which was issued on 10 -10 -96 by the Assistant Commissioner, Hosur -II Division whereby he has denied the credit of Rs. 4,27,066/ - and has also advised respondents herein to go in appeal, if aggrieved, by his decision. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the party filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed their appeal vide impugned order ibid. The present appeal by the Revenue is against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The grounds taken by the Revenue are :

(3.) THE learned DR reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal and sought for allowing the Revenue appeal.