9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal has been filed by M/s. Imperial Auto Industries against the order-in-appeal dated 31-8-1995 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had confirmed order-in-original of the A.C. rejecting their refund claim of Rs. 67,620/. 2. None has come present on behalf of the appellants to argue the appeal. They have prayed for the decision on merits. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assistant Commissioner did not agree with the version of the appellants and through order-in-original dated 23-9-1994 rejected their claim for the refund of the duty amount. This order of the AC was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through impugned order. The sole ground on which the appellants have challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeal) is that they are entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless the procedure mentioned therein, had been complied with and requisite details had been rendered to the satisfaction of Collector within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. The assessee is also required under this Rule to store the goods separately pending these being refined, re-conditioned etc. unless permitted by the Commissioner by an order in writing. But the file shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the refund claim of the appellants while confirming the order-in-original. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances referred to above, we find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ratio of the law laid down in Perfect Industrial Corp. (supra) referred by the appellants is not applicable to their case in the light of the facts and circumstances detailed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
