9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed against the Order dated 21-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant is an assessee under Central Excise Act engaged in the manufacture of branded chewing tobacco. On 29-11-94 the officers of Central Excise (PI), Nasik conducted a search in the premises of the factory and residence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from factory and payment of duty and corresponding bills/ vouchers/invoices against which the goods were further sold by the buyers to their customers/dealers. In their letter dated 22-2-95, the appellants urged the Assistant Collector to treat the letter as their claim for refund for the amount paid under protest. 4. The Asstt. Commissioner by his letter dated 27-4-95 directed the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice was issued and the same is yet to be decided. (2) The appellants have paid the duty by debiting in their PLA on 30-11-94 under protest and the same amount has been now claimed as refund. (3) The appellants have filed a protest letter on 30-11-94 to the Asstt. Commissioner, Nasik. But they have not made endorsement as required under sub-rule (4) of the said Rule. As such under sub-rule ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions made by both sides are considered apart from the grounds urged in the memo of appeal. There appears an amount of force in the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the refund claim of Rs. 76,570/- is independent of proceedings in another matter as regards alleged clandestine removals. The amount debited in the PLA under protest is not denied. There is a provision for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
