9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Veeraiyan, Member (T) S/Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant and P.C. Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Amit Jain, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per M. Veeraiyan Member (T) (for the Bench)] - The present appeal is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.2.2005, by which the order of original authority dated 31.5.04 rejecting the refund claim of the appellant amounting to Rs.77,99,837/- has been rejected. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The appellant made exports of stainless steel products under DEEC Scheme and for the said purpose, they were granted DEEC licence permitting import of specified grades of steel sheets. There was a dispute about mis-match betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authority. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 23-2-2005 has upheld the order of the original authority as above. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they are bound to pay the duty as per the order dated 3-11-97 of the Commissioner which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, he disputed the interpretation and consequently the actual amount payable as per the order dated 31-5-04 of the original authority and the order dated 23-2-2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals). He agrees that consignments covered by 67 shipping bills were not eligible for DEEC benefits. However, he submits that though they have claimed the benefit in respect of all these bills, they have actually availed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion if availed should be reversed. In as much as the order of the commissioner stands restored by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount originally demanded by the commissioner requires to be paid and it is not proper and legal to interfere with the same. This amount has been arrived at by the Commissioner while passing his order dated 3-11-97 based on show cause notice issued to them in which quantification of duty in respect of each of the 67 shipping bills has been indicated and the same have not been challenged by the appellant. He further submitted that the figures have also been examined and found to be correct by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. At th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
