2006 (12) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants are manufacturers of motor cars falling under SH 8703.90. They had filed 31 refund claims for refund of Special Excise Duty (SED) paid on the motor cars manufactured and cleared from their factory and subsequently registered as taxis with various State Transport Authorities. Some of these claims were in terms of Notific .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellate authority sustained the decision of the lower authority. Hence these appeals. 2. Before us, learned Counsel argued that, as the relevant show cause notices had proposed to reject the refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the time-bar provisions under that Section should be applied to the claims, and not anything contained in the Notification. According to him the sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the appellants had been maintaining that the assessments were provisional and hence the refund claims could not be rejected on the ground of time-bar. It is, further, noticed that the provisional nature of assessments is a fact accepted in the impugned order. Just as the department cannot demand duty from an assessee on the basis of a provisional assessment, the latter cannot claim refund of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X