1999 (11) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. The facts leading to the present dispute are as follows : 2. The assessees paid duty on the activity of reshelling of sugar mill rollers, under protest, contesting the duty on their activi ty. They later filed a refund claim citing the judgment of the CEGAT in their case hold ing that such activity did not amount to manufact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the protest did not cover the entire period. The present appeal is directed against this order. The appellants have acquired due permission from the empowered Committee. 3. We have heard Shri Arun Mehta, advocate for the appellants and Shri B.K. Choubey, JDR for the Revenue. 4. We find reference to Rule 215 and Section 11B(S) as not relevant to the proceedings. Of all arguments made on merit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X