9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce amount. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Fluorescent pigment falling under Tariff Item 14DD of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They filed the classification list for their product under Tariff item 14DD under protest and had paid Central Excise duty for the same under protest. They filed a refund claim amounting to Rs. 84,197.20p. for the period from 18-11-1976 to 31-3-1978 under their letter dated 15-12-1982 on the ground that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by his order-in-appeal dated 11-6-1982, had held in respect of another assessee manufacturing the same item as not classifiable under Tariff item 14DD. They contended that the duty paid in excess of the rates prevailing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 218/77 in respect of the capital investment made on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit. The Asstt. Collector has observed that although the previous Assistant Collector was satisfied with the report submitted to the Range Superintendent and had passed the order-in-original directing the grant of refund; however, he was not satisfied to the verification made by the said predecessor and therefore, he was entitled to re-examine the issue in the light of the report of the Range Superintendent. The Assistant Collector has examined the balance sheets submitted by the assessee certified by the Chartered Accountant which revealed that the capital investment on plant and machinery is much less than the prescribed limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal and sustainable. They have further contended that the earlier order of refund in which they had succeeded was kept open only for verifying the correctness of the amount and not for any other reason to deny their claim. They contend that even in the impugned proceedings there is no dispute with regard to the duty amount and hence their claim for refund should be fully satisfied. They contended that the Assistant Collector in the impugned order, had calculated on his own the amount of duty which could be refunded to them after taking into account the said refund as profit and thereafter revising the assessable value already cleared and assessed by the proper officer. They contended that the previous officer had examined this issue and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and order passed by his predecessor and also whether the return could be considered as profit and deny claim of the appellants. In both these issues, we have to answer in favour of the assessee. 9. As can be noted, the learned Assistant Collector had gone into the details of the claim for refund made by the assessee on the basis of the order passed by the Collector (A) in respect of the same goods as not being dutiable under TI 14DD in the case of Aeromax Chemicals. There was no dispute with regard to the duty having been paid under protest. The Assistant Collector had also taken the report of the Superintendent and after careful examination of the case, had allowed the refund. There is no dispute with regard to the duty paid in this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
