9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal, which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal, the dispute relates to the refund claim lodged by the appellants. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. After the determination of the ACP, as the appellants were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme, at the relevant time, they paid the duty for the period September, 1997 to March, 1998. However, they simultaneously also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority. 4. From the resume of the facts, detailed above, on the face of it, the refund claim of the appellants could not be held to be time-barred, it was filed within six months from the date of passing of the abatement of duty order in their favour by the Commissioner (Appeals). The right to claim the refund of the excess duty arose to them only after the passing of that order. The refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme was based on the ACP and not on the clearance of the goods. The determination of the ACP did not depend upon the clearances of the goods by the appellants, but was made by the Commissioner keeping in view the capacity of their rolling mill under the Compounded Levy Scheme. No findings in this regard, have been recorded by the adjudicating authority o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
