9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is an appeal filed against the decision of Collector (Appeals) passed on 4-12-1991 made in Order-in Appeal No. KVV-385/91 BRD, dated 4-12-1991 whereunder he dismissed the appeal of the appellants. The appellant is a manufacturer of sugar falling under Chapter 17. The appellant had constructed pucca tanks for storage of molasses. During the course of production of sugar and molasses it appears so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants paid their duty under protest and filed an application for refund of the said amount paid. The refund application was rejected by Assistant Collector by his order dated 7-3-1991 against which an appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals) who again by the impugned order stated that they could have agitated against the order of the Collector dated 14-2-1989. Hence he rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rival submissions. The communication dated 14-2-1989 conveying the Collector s decision rejecting the request of the appellant is not appealable order. But nothing prevented the appellant from approaching the Collector from passing an appealable order against which further legal proceedings would have been initiated by the appellant. When the request of the applicant for destruction is rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
