9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder]. The facts of the case are that vide Order dated 20-7-1983, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi confirmed the duty demand of Rupees 18,07,787/- under the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of Rupees 5 lakhs upon the appellants against which they filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2000, allowed the appeal of the appellants and set aside the entire duty demand and penalty. Consequent thereto, the appellants filed claim for refund of Rupees 3 lakhs on 27-7-2000. The claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the action taken by the Department in rejecting the claim for refund was valid as per Sections 131 and 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 which provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted that the duty demand raised against the appellants was struck down by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the ground that Rule 10 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules was deleted without a saving clause, upon introduction of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. However, she has rejected the appellants contention that proceedings cannot be revived under Section 38A, for the reason that proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
