9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Victor Thyagaraj, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The Condonation application refers to supplemental appeals which has arisen out of the main appeal received in time. The Registry had issued Defect Memo calling upon the appellants to file the supplemental appeals. The matter had been kept pending. The appellants had filed the main appeal in 1993 and after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid to RCC Poles and stay plates manufactured by independent contractors. The Assistant Commissioner by four independent orders-in-original rejected their claim on the ground that the duty had been rightly paid by the appellants and the contractors were not the manufacturers. He also denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The Commissioner disposed of all the orders-in-original by order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal Nos. 49 to 53/92-C.E., 67 to 71/92-C.E. and 94/92, dated 14-2-1992 passed by Collector (Appeals), Trichy. He has also noted the Orders-in-Appeal No. 166/92-C.E., dated 13-7-1992 and that of the Orders-in-Appeal No. 206 to 208/92-C.E., dated 28-9-1992 and also that of Orders-in-Appeal No. 241 to 243/92-C.E., dated 24-11-1992. 4. Arguing for the appellants, Learned Advocate submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, he submits that as the Tribunal has already given finding on merits in all their appeals holding that the real manufacturer are the contractors. Therefore, he submits that the refund claim filed by them is required to be allowed, the duty paid by the appellants which they are not required to pay in the present case. 5. Learned DR reiterates the Departmental view. 6. On a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
