2006 (4) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against the OIA No. 13/2003-C.E., dated 8-1-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants cleared Motor Spirit and HSD to M/s. IOC, Irigur. The consignee has a bonded warehouse at the said location and is authorised to receive ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion that there is double payment of duty but the claim should be filed by the consignee M/s. IOC. The appellants have strongly challenged the impugned order. 3. Shri D.P. Bhave, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. It was urged by the learned Advocate that when the payment of duty twice on the same goods is established .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iii) Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. CCE - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 658 (Tribunal) 5. The learned SDR pointed out that the appellants have completely ignored the procedure prescribed and it cannot be set right at a later stage. Hence, he said that they are not entitled for the refund. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. When the petroleum products were sent b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X