9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and they were clearing the sugar for free sale as well as the levy sugar, which is sold through Public Distribution System. The rate of duty in respect of free sale sugar is @ Rs. 85/- per quintal wherea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is liable to duty @ Rs. 52/- per quintal. Thereafter, the appellants filed a refund claim for differential duty, which was rejected. 3. The contention of the appellants is that the duty was paid by them and they filed a refund claim within time limit applicable to the refund. Their submission is that the lower authorities relied upon the letter issued by the Ministry of Food and Consumer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion System to the sugar factory by the Ministry of Food and Consumer affairs only. 6. The Commissioner based this finding on the letter dated 13-10-98 issued by the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs. This letter is in respect of supply of sugar in the public Distribution System for the month of Oct., 98 whereas in the present case, the dispute is in respect of release sugar for the month of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
