2001 (7) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .S. Kang, Member (J)]. These three appeals are filed by the appellants against the common order in appeal passed by the Collector of Customs. In the impugned order the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of Ball-bearings and filed Bill of Entry in the year 1988. The Ball bearings were assessed to duty under H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ller bearings required for permanent fitment on aeroplanes. Learned Counsel submits that as the goods in question are to be used as permanent fitment on aeroplanes, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of the notification. 4. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that at the time of import of the goods, the import of the goods, the appellants filed Bill of Entry and in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid duty without any protest and got the goods cleared. Appellants filed refund applications in which he claimed a classification different, then the order of assessment, which is not permissible. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, held that, where an order is appealable under the Act and is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X