2005 (3) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - The appellant s claim for refund of CVD paid on imported raw asbestos fibre was rejected by the Original Authority in view of the directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] wherein the appellants was also one of the parties. The order of the lower authority w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellants paid the duty under protest. Otherwise the Department would not allow them to clear the goods from the factory. When an amount has been illegally collected, the same should be refunded to them. He relied on the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kuil Fireworks Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. 4.The learned SDR referred to the Order of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the appellants paid the duty only after the Supreme Court vacated the stay. Hence their contention that they had already paid duty even when the stay was in operation is not correct as per the records. These facts have been gone through by both the Original authority and the first Appellate authority. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Additional duty has been paid only after the stay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X