1994 (3) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to be paid in excess, in respect of manufacture of the goods covered under Tariff Item No. 68. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim. The petitioners preferred appeal before the Appellate Collector and appeal was decided in favour of the petitioners. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged by the Department by filing appeal before the CEGAT. 2. During the pendency of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eeded and order of refund was set aside, but the proceedings were remitted back to the Assistant Collector for fresh disposal. After remand, the Assistant Collector dismissed the claim for refund by order dated January 17, 1989. 4. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that in view of the disposal of the refund claim by the Asstt. Collector on January 17, 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X