2005 (3) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cate for the respondents. 2. Shri Sanyal submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed the refund claim by the respondents. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper and correct. A person paying duty under protest has to follow the procedure prescribed by the Rules. In the present case, the procedure has not been followed. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sp;    CCE, Mumbai II v. Kohinoor Industries reported in 2004 (63) RLT 453 (CESTAT-Mum.); (e)        Maihar Cement v. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 991 (Tri-Del.) He, therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. I have perused the records and the citations submitted by the respondents. In the case of Maihar Cement v. CCE, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X