9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice U.L. Bhat, President]. Order-in-Appeal dated 4-12-1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals) rejecting the appeal (as also another appeal) and confirming the order dated 3-5-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The dispute arises in relation to the period 1976 to 1983. Appellant manufacturing Asbestos Cement Products, Asbestos Mill Board and joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action that the appellant was entitled to refund of an amount exceeding Rs. 52 lacs on account of freight element. On 16-8-1985 similar order was passed by the Supreme Court for refund of Rs. 10 lacs. Supreme Court also directed the Department to file an affidavit showing the correct amount to be refunded. On behalf of the Department, the Assistant Collector filed an affidavit showing that further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court in August and October, 1985. The entire amount was actually refunded to the appellant on or before 15-11-1985. 4. On 30-1-1986, show cause notice was issued to the appellant stating that the benefit of refund had not been passed on to the customers and therefore should be treated as profit in the hands of the appellant and as part of the wholesale price and therefore the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944, introduced in 1991, cannot have any bearing in a situation where refund had been effected even in 1985. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR pointed out that re-determination should have been made before the amount of refund was quantified and placed before the Supreme Court. 6. The Supreme Court accepted the quantification of the amount to be refunded and directed refund, which was subsequently effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
