9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r]. - The Revenue has filed the above application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following questions of law stated to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A 823-824/97-NB, dated 17-10-1997 : "Whether Central Excise duty paid by the assessee in pursuance of the adjudication orders passed by the original quasi-judicial authority is refunda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the product was chargeable to duty at the rate of 25% ad valorem BED instead of 15% ad valorem BED paid by them, for the reason that the benefit of Notification No. 96/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 was not available to the product. The Assistant Collector vide Order-in-Original No. 40/89, dated 10-5-1989 and No. 43/89, dated 13-6-1989, confirmed the demands in pursuance of such orders, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of Rs. 78,694/- and Rs. 1,40,566.30 P on dated 9-8-1994 and 19-8-1994 pertaining to the period covered by order-in-Original No. 40/89, dated 10-5-1989 and No. 43/89, dated 13-6-1989. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under cover of his order No. 24/95, dated 29-3-1995. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal, dated 15-2-1996, upheld the Assistant Collector's orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal's decision in favour of the assessee's on similar issue relating to a different period, unless and until consequential relief has been sought by the assessee and granted in respect of the specific period. A question of law therefore, certainly arises in this case on the correct interpretation of proviso to Rule 223B of the Central Excise Rules. Since there is no authoritative pronouncement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
