9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. These two appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 20 & 21/2007 (V-II) CUS dated 10.08.2007. Since both the appeals raise a common question of law they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are both the appellants are exporters of Frozen Shrimps during the period June 2001 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and rejected the appeal filed. 3. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants took us through the entire records and submits that the issue of agricultural produce cess on the shrimps and prawns has been settled once and for all and it has been held that the said cess is not payable. He would submit that the appellant having paid the said cess at the time of export is eligible for refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the judgment in the case of Ahmed Khan & Sons [2001 (132) ELT 764 (Tri. Kol)]. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that appellants herein had discharged the agricultural produce cess during the period June 2001 to October 2001 and again in June 2002. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they were infact contesting the matter of leviability of cess on the prawns and shrimps, we find that both the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim of the appellants for the refund of the amounts of cess paid. The lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim on the limitation as it is on the record that appellant had paid the amount in 2001 and 2002 and filed refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
