9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - In this appeal filed by M/s. Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd, the appellants had paid the excise duty on motor vehicles, classifiable under Heading No. 87.02 during the period 1-3-86 to 2-4-86. In the assessment order the Superintendent had charged duty on the entire value of such motor vehicles without allowing deductions of the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order is not a demand under Sec. 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act. The impugned order is an assessment order passed on the existing notifications by the Supdt. of Central Excise in assessing the RT 12 return for the month of March during which period appellants had paid duty provisionally as admitted by them. The only ground for modification of the order and the amount demanded thereunder is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty under the existing provisions of law. Therefore, remedy is not in filing an appeal but in filing a refund claim to the proper authority i.e. the Asst. Collector of Central Excise of the jurisdiction as such. There being no mistake in the assessment carried out by the Supdt., I am unable to modify the order of assessment. The appeal is consequently rejected. Appellants may file a refund claim w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f they so desired to be heard in person. It was not a case of finalising the RT 12 returns on the basis of approved classification list/price list. The appellants have been fastened extra duty liability without issue of a notice to them which is a mandatory requirement. 5. In view of the above, we do not agree with the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that there was no need to issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
