9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute. Accordingly, they were taken up for consideration together and are disposed of under this common order. 2. The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking, manufacturing petroleum products, inter alia, Benzene and Toluene. Since their goods were liable to duty on ad valorem basis during the relevant period, they were required to file price list for approval before Central Excise Authorities. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty collected from the buyers, the appellant filed a refund application dt. 7-5-1993. This claim was rejected by the Central Excise Authorities holding that the payment of duty was in terms of approved price list. Rejection of this refund claim is the subject matter of Appeal No. E/305/02. The appellant had also filed a revised price list for the period covered by the price list dt. 16-10-1992, so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In fact, the sale of the goods was at the approved prices. According to the Counsel, the error is only in making assessments of consignments and amounts paid based on the approved price lists. It is being pointed out that since the declared prices, which were approved also, were consolidated cum-duty prices, all assessments were to be correctly made treating the prices as including duty. Instea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to buyers. However, duty payments were made treating the approved prices as ex-duty. In the facts of the present case, we are in agreement with the appellant that this is more a case of error in making assessments and payment of duties than a case where refund is being claimed, based on a change of value. The appellant's case, therefore, is not covered by the objection raised by ld. DR that appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
