9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have heard Shri A. K. Jain for the appellants and Shri Jai Narayanan Nair for the respondent. Shri Jain has argued that the present appeal relates to the refund claim of the appellants for the period from 1-4-1976 to 12-8-1976. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in his order-in-original No. V(18)32-Ref/80/5332 dated 7-8-1980, rejected the claim for refund pertaining to this period on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1990 and rejected the appeal and said that there was no such eventuality under which the provisional assessment could be ordered. Hence the present appeal is before us. The learned Advocate, during his arguments, has stated that the Tribunal, vide order No. 456-457/1987-A dated 22-6-1987 held that the appellants refund claim for the period from 1-4-1972 to 27-7-1973 could not be considered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the calendar year 1976 and were finalised on 22-1-1987 whereas specific rate of excise duty came into effect from 16-3-1976 which was applicable in the case .........Even if rates were specific assessment could still be provisional based on other issues". The Collector (Appeals) in the said order, therefore, held that all the assessments of the appellants for Coca-Cola and Fanta were provisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oca-Cola and Fanta. He has, therefore, stated that the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur and also another Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi categorically stated that the assessments were provisional. Hence the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 2. Although Shri Nair has reiterated what has been stated by the Collector (Appeals) in her impugned order, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
