2013 (12) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat:- The deposit of duty by the appellant was in respect of number of clearances made from the factory gate and the amount was debited as a result of demand made by their jurisdictional central excise authorities - such deposit of amount was in the nature of deposit made after clearances and at the instructions of the Revenue, which has been held to be as not payable by the Tribunal - clearances .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt raised a demand of Rs. 37,532/-. The said demand was paid by the appellant in the month of Jan. 1995 by debiting in their PLA and RG-23 Part-II Register. 2. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the differential duty paid by them on the ground that inasmuch as factory gate sale price was available, there was no requirement of adopting depot sale price and demanding differential duty. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,532/- from their PLA as also RG-23 Part-II. It is also on record that no supplementary invoice was raised by them in respect of the said differential duty so paid. As such, it becomes clear that the said deposit of duty by the appellant was in respect of number of clearances made from the factory gate and the said amount was debited as a result of demand made by their jurisdictional central excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X