2006 (5) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard. 2. The issue involved is refund of duties paid under protest for the period November, 1999 to November 2000, which has been denied by the lower authorities on the grounds : (i) BOPP film was not a plain film, since it was BOPP film; (ii) procedures of 1996 Rules framed for end use verification have not been complied with and followed; (iii) On certai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder as was originally envisaged and would thus be retrospective in its application. 4. In this view of the matter, we would find force in the argument made before us that the subject films were always entitled to the benefit of notification and more so when we find that this explanation has been introduced subsequent to the Board's instructions clarifying that the notification was not appli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und decision in this connection and would consider that a period of 30 days would be sufficient to conclude the claim of refunds. This period of 30 days would apply from the date of receipt of this order in the Custom House. The appellants should be heard before a decision is taken. The appellants should co-operate and not seek an adjournment on the dates fixed for hearing. 6. Appeal dispose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X