9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 27-4-1983, became final - refund claim on the basis of exemption Notification No. 130/83-C.E. cannot be entertained - E/1069/2006 - . A/604/2012-EX(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 9-5-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The facts leading to filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under :- 1.1 The appellant is manufacturer of sugar. The period of dispute in this case is October and November, 1990 when there was exemption Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983 prescribing concessional rate of duty for sugar manufacturer by a new factory or by a factory which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 and also look into the aspect of unjust enrichment. 1.3 In pursuance of the Tribunal s judgment, the matter was adjudicated de novo. In de novo proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 28-10-2005 again dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the appellant did not challenge the AC s decision refusing to accept their classification list filed on 8-2-1992, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983 with retrospective effect, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., they cannot claim refund. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been rightly rejected. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. 6. The short point of dispute to be decided in this case is as to whether the refund claim for October November, 1990 of the appellant filed in February, 1991 on the basis of exemption Notification No. 130/83-C.E. can be entertained, when during the period of dispute, they had not claimed this exemption and the classification list filed in February, 92 with retrospective effect claiming this exemption notification, was rejected by the AC. We are of the view that during the period of dispute for claiming exemption notification, filing of classification list an its approval by the Assistant Commissioner was mandatory requirement under 173B without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
