2011 (8) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded that demand was perfectly valid Apparently, the appellants had not been able to satisfy the Tribunal that the payment of duty to the tune of Rs.5,70,000/- relating to the period was unjustified.
Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri R.K. Verma, Authorised Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the DR for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... benefits that those were available to the appellants under Notification No.51/93 dated 28.2.93. In view thereof, according to the appellants, their claim for refund of Rs.5,70,000/- was justified. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has clearly observed that in relation to the amount of Rs.5,70,000/-, the claim for refund thereof was specifically waived by the appellants under th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal in para 6 of the said order had clearly recorded that However, so far as the demand for payment of differential duty for the period of 22.6.93 to 28.7.93 is concerned, learned counsel initially tried to contend that the same was also illegal by relying upon the Notification No.51/93 dated 28.2.93, but when close scrutiny of this Notification showed that it did not apply to the case of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X