TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order]. Appellants had filed refund claim pertaining to the period 1-3-1988 to 22-6-1988 of differential duty paid against an order of Assistant Commissioner dated 16-8-1988. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16-8-1988 of Assistant Commissioner was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter rested there since the assessee did not file any appeal against this or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts protest is void ab initio as they have also not complied with the provisions of Rule 233B of CER 1944, as such, the refund claim is hit by the limitation of time bar; and (iii) the refund claim is not accompanied by GPIs, PLA, RG 23A Part II, is legally proper, correct and sustainable. From the case records, it is seen that the part amount of Rs. 1,22,552/- now claimed as refund by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PLA, RG 23A Part II etc. and prove that they have neither passed on the benefit of Modvat credit nor recovered such amount of duty element from their buyers. As appellants have, neither filed further appeal against OIA, dated 22-2-1991, not obtained a favourable order, nor established their claim as required under Section 11B of CEA 1944, the OIO No. 33/BHD/96/Refund/1054, dated 4-4-1996 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oming to this decision, one is bound by the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Flock India [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.)]. (b) The reliance of the appellants on Para 70 of the case of decision of Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] will not help the case as even if the refund is held to be not barred by limitation, the refund is not eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
