9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The claim for refund of duty of Rs. 58,72,735.28 on the ground that the goods on which the above amount of duty was paid on Ground Power Units manufactured by them were accepted by the Tribunal to fall for classification under CET sub-heading 8803.00 as parts of aircrafts, attracting nil rate of duty, has been rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is itself a protest, in the light of the Tribunal's decision in Flash Labs Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 782 and further in the light of the Tribunal's order in Southern Refineries Ltd. v. CCE, Trivandrum - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 334, wherein it has been held that the procedure prescribed under Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for payment of duty under protest is mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty payable and have also drawn our attention to letters written by the customers affirming that they had not paid any excise duty on the purchase of the goods in question from the appellants. In the light of the orders of the Tribunal in CIMMCO Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 246, Himat Singka Seide Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 885 and the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
