9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al)]. All these appeals of the department are against a common order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in favour of the respondents. 2. The appellant is represented by ld. DR. No representation for the respondents despite notice. 3. We have examined the records and heard the SDR. The original authority had sanctioned refund of customs duty to the respondents in respect of impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for recovery of an amount of customs duty erroneously refunded by the Asst. Collector. This view was taken by the lower appellate authority, relying on the Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector v. Universal Radiators Ltd., reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 222. In the present appeals, it is contended to the effect that the decision in Universal Radiators (Supra) is not correct in view of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al authority s order, the Collector passed an order of review under Section 35E and directed the Asst. Collector to file an appeal with the Collector (Appeals). The question considered by the Larger Bench was whether, irrespective of the remedy pursued under Section 35E, the department could recover the duty from the assessee under Section 11A. It was held that the two provisions were dependent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t therein. We do not accept the contention that recover of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of Section 35E if the time limit provided in Section 11A has expired. To so read the provisions would be to render Section 35E virtually ineffective, which would be imperssible. The appeals are dismissed with costs . 4. Ld. SDR, relying on the Larger B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the cases. The appellant has contended in these appeals that the refund of duty was made erroneously. According to the appellant, no such refund was admissible to the parties for want of evidence of the alleged shortage of goods. This contention raises questions of facts, which need to be examined by the lower authority. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a fresh speaki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
