1997 (3) TMI 392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent]. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware had filed a price list declaring uniform trade discount of 5%. Subsequently, respondent introduced two lower qualities of products, namely, Class II and Class III and filed two revised price lists effective from 10-7-1980 and 22-9-1980 respectively declaring additional trade discount of 10% for class II goods and 20% for cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll by the Assistant Collector and the second revised price list effective from 22-9-1980 had been approved, therefore, additional trade discount cannot be regarded as admissible for any period prior to 22-9-1980. The Collector (Ap peals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that this was a new contention not borne out by the records. This order is now challenged. 2. The original order passed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d therefore, the refund claim was not tenable. This ground also could have been raised before the Collector (Appeals) when he was dealing with the appeal filed by the manufacturer against the order passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim. As we have indicated earlier, order passed by the Collector (Appeals) has become final and the eligibility of the respondent for refund cann .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X