2005 (6) TMI 347

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-President]. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, certain deductions were disallowed by the Revenue while arriving at the assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant. 3. The contention of the appellant is that for the period March, 1997 to March, 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). 5. The contention of the Revenue is that Section 11A provides recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid, as the case may be, was on the basis of any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or valuation of excisable goods. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Easland .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same period. The reliance of appellant on the decision of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. In this case the Hon ble Supreme Court held that without challenging the assessment order, the assessee cannot file refund claim by challenging the assessment in the refund claim. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the refund is a consequential relief when the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X