9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Jt. Commissioner(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER The appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No.38/2004 dt. 05/02/2004 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Mangalore. The dispute pertains to the period 01/04/2001 to 27/03/2003 and concerns the rejection of a refund claim submitted for an amount of Rs. 9,81,724/- filed by the appellant originally before the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reject the appeal by adding an additional ground that no evidence has been produced to show that the excise duty paid has not been passed on to the buyers. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri T.V. Ajayan, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Jt. Commissioner(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m before rejection of the refund claims. He further argued that even the learned Commissioner(Appeals), while recording that the relevant documents were submitted before him and further that these documents were not submitted before the original authority, has not ordered for de novo decision of the refund claim by the original authority. He also relied upon many case law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. HPCL on payment of duty on ex-storage price instead of transaction value. It is seen from records that the original authority did not issue a show-cause notice detailing the grounds under which the refund claim is proposed to be rejected. He has also failed to extend an opportunity to the appellant to make good any omissions such as furnishing copies of relevant agreements and oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
