9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )]. This is an appeal filed against OIA No. 138/2003-C.E., dated 7-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) II, Bangalore. 2. The appellant purchased a scraped TV Plant (a) from M/s. BEL for Rs. 30 lakhs. They paid an additional sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- as excise duty. They felt that the item purchased by them is liable to be classified under sub-heading 8525.25 attracti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant firm had borne the central excise duty and therefore there is no question of unjust enrichment. Hence, he requested the Bench to pass a favourable order. 5. Learned SDR submitted that the refund claim is clearly barred by limitation because the duty was paid between 9th January, 2001 and 8th September, 2001 but the refund claim was filed on 17th December, 2002. He further said that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny after payment of duty. It is not for the appellants to challenge classification. The appellants dispute the classification made by BEL. In that case, they should have taken up the matter with M/s. BEL even before purchase of the same. We find that the appellants do not have any locus standi to file the refund claim. Assuming that duty had been collected illegally, it is clearly seen in the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
