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

..... espondents. 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 contrary to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eported 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, Bhopal referred to above, it has been held that the duty paid by the appellants consequent to issue of show-cause notice which was subsequently decided in their favour amounts to d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X