9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 152/2004 (H-III) dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent filed a refund claim with the department. The Original Authority rejected the refund claim of Rs. 4,05,883/- filed by the appellant consequent to price reduction affected by their buyers. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent to clearance of goods on payment of duty for whatsoever reason not to affect the liability for payment of excise duty. 3. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate, appeared for the respondent and Ms Sudha Koka, learned SDR, for the Revenue. 4. The learned SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal and relied on the following case laws: (i) Hindustan Wires Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi 2003 (151) E.L.T. 679 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim has been filed within the period of limitation under section 11B and even otherwise being within time deserves to be considered. The issue of provisionality is relevant only from the point of view of limitation. The following case laws were relied on : (i) Keltch Energies Ltd. vs. CCE, Mangalore 2006 (196) E.L.T. 282 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) CCE, Cochin Vs. Telk Ltd. 2005 (182) E.L.T. 462 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent was required to discharge only less duty liability. The refund claim was actually filed within the time limit. Therefore, whether the assessment is provisional or not is not at all relevant in this case, because when the refund claim has been filed within the time limit even if the assessment is final, one has to examine the refund claim. It is reiterated that the question of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
