TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. In the result, we sustain the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the present appeal. - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - The appellants are manufacturers of Asbestos Cement Corrugated sheets (ACC sheets, for short) falling under SH 6804.00 of the CRTA Schedule. They sell this product from their factory gate as well as from their depots situated in different parts of the country. As the actual price to be sold from the depots is not known at the time of removal of goods from the factory gate, the appellants adopt the nearest prevailing value for the purpose of payment of duty. If the goods are cleared at a higher price from depot, they pay the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls [1997 (94) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.)], that the demand for recovery of erroneous refund had to be made under Section 11A within the prescribed limitation period. Ld. Counsel has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the following cases :- 1. Sree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 1991 (52) E.L.T. 631 (Tribunal). 2. Doothat Tea Estate Kanoi Plantation (P) Ltd v. CCE, Shillong, 2001 (135) E.L.T. 386 (Tri.-Kolkata). 3. Mahabir Industries v. CCE, 2002 (140) E.L.T. 261. 3. Ld. SDR has, on the other hand, submitted that it was open to the department to recover an erroneously refunded amount of duty without recourse to review of the refund order. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court's decision in Re-Rolling Mills (supra) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Re-Rolling Mills (supra) by the Apex Court. In the case of Re-Rolling Mills (supra), apparently, the question considered by the Apex Court was whether a SCN demanding duty could be validly issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act to an assessee without revising the assessment order under Section 35E of the Act. After noting that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was pari materia with Section 28 of the Customs Act, their lordships applied the ratio of Jain Shudh Vanaspati (supra) to the Central Excise case on hand. We follow this precedent and apply the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Jain Shudh Vanaspati (supra) to the facts of the instant case and, accordingly, reject the appellants' contention that a SCN demandin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
