2008 (2) TMI 721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby refund filed by the appellant was rejected. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. The appellant applied for permission to store the sugar outside the factory premises without payment of duty. The permission was granted on the condition that appellants are liable to pay supervision charges. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at manufacturer has not to pay any supervision charges. The contention is also that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order agreed that refund is not time-barred, therefore, the impugned order is beyond the scope of show-cause notice. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant asked for concession to store the sugar outside the factory without payment of duty and the permiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... outside factory on payment of supervision charges. In these circumstances, as the appellant acted on the permission granted and paid accordingly, therefore, subsequently without challenging the order of permission under which the condition was imposed. The appellants are not entitled for refund of amount paid under the condition imposed under the permission. In these circumstances, I find no meri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X