PANKAJ MITHAL,J. - (1.) These are four Central Excise Appeals which have been preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the common order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 6-5-2013 [2013 (293) E.L.T. 405 (Tri.-Del.)] by which four appeals of the same assessee were allowed and the respondent assessee was allowed refund of excise duty which was deposited by it under protest pending the consideration of the validity of the adjudicating order.
(2.) In all appeals a common substantial question of law as under is proposed to be raised:- Whether the CESTAT is justified in allowing the appeals of the respondent assessee and in permitting refund of excise duty to it under Section 11B of the Act even though the presumption of Section 12B of the Act was not successfully dislodged by the respondent assessee?
(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the respondent assessee is engaged in manufacture of photo-copier machines. The said photo-copiers so manufactured are sold to the various customers. The respondent assessee enters into an agreement with the purchasers/customers for the maintenance of these machines which is known as Full Service Maintenance Agreement (FSMA).;