9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in holding that In the instant case there is no mere technical lapse as the appellant failed to follow the mandatory conditions prescribed in the exemption N/N. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992 - the Order-in-Original is sustainable and needs no interference - appellants not eligible for refund - appeal rejected - decided against assessee. - Appeal No. E/3381/2005-Mum - Final Order No. A/89061/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held against the appellant and rejected the contentions of the appellant. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is whether the appellant having not followed the procedures laid down in chapter X of Central Excise rules 1944, is eligible for the refund of the duty paid on the moulds which are captively manufactured and used fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice. The mere production of declaration regarding utilisation of moulds and its endorsement by jurisdictional Supdt. Cannot be equated with substantial compliance of procedure set out in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It also reveals that refund was initially rejected not solely on the ground of non filing of Classification List claiming exemption but also on the ground of not fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that a permission of this nature was a technical requirement and could be issued later on. The Hon'ble Apex Court has only condoned procedural lapse. In the instant there is no mere technical lapse as the appellant failed to follow the mandatory conditions prescribed in the exemption Notification No. 68/92 dated 11.06.1992 and in view of this the said Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
