9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These are 2 appeals filed by M/s. PVP Ltd. being aggrieved with the common order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In one appeal the matter relates to the rejection of refund claim as time barred and in another rejection of the refund claim partly as time barred and particularly on merits. The matter relates to the duty liability in respect of the acid oil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that approval was not challenged by the appellants, there was no ground for sanctioning any refund. He has also held that the factory of the appellant was not covered under Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 as applicable to the Oil Mills and Solvent Extraction Industry. The ld. Advocate submits that the case was covered by Notification No. 115/75-C.E. Shri M.P. Singh, ld. SDR submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to above. We also take note of the fact that the appellants have not challenged the classification and without challenging the classification had filed the refund claim and this aspect of the matter is covered by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.)]. As regards the benefit of Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently creating the basis for the refund for the past period, or the matter is under further agitation and the classification claimed by the assessee is later on upheld in appeal. This is not the case here and, therefore, the very basis of the refund claims is not there. After going through the facts on record we consider that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the ld. Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
