2003 (7) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Appellant. Shri V. Valte, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture/processing of man-made fab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. Appellants filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the lower authorities had finalised the provisional assessment including galleries while determining the production capacity. These orders were not challenged by the appellants. Therefore, the refund claim is not admissible. 4. The contention of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se, the provisional assessment was done by the revenue authorities in respect of the capacity of stenter and the assessment was not finalised by the revenue. In these circumstances, we find as the assessment is not finalised, the refund claim is premature. The refund claim is to be considered on merit after finalising the assessment in respect of capacity of stenter of the appellants. In this situ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X