1994 (8) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ember (T)]. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 23-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The facts, briefly, are that during the period 4-12-1979 to 16-12-1979, appellants paid duty on LDPE produced from Raw Naptha @ 40% ad valorem instead of 27% ad valorem as was payable according to Notification No. 302/79. Hence, they claimed refund of excess d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the appellants in fact had legitimately claimed refund of duty in excess only after re-calculating their assessable value. 3. We have heard Smt. C.G. Lal, ld. S.D.R. who reiterated the reasoning contained in the order of the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector. 4. Submissions made by both the sides have been carefully considered. The calculation sheet to explain their stand s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore be reduced by this additional duty of Rs. 1.97 The net refund would be Rs. 9.28 - Rs. 1.97 = Rs. 7.31 These are alternative methods. The department wants to adopt the second method after the first method has already been adopted. Hence the demand is incorrect. 5. From the above calculation, it is seen that in the case of Cum duty price and in a situation where the m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X