9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim, filed by the appellants, was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and they were clearing the sugar for free sale as well as the levy sugar, which is sold through Public Distribution System. The rate of duty in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s levy sugar as per the directions of Ministry of Food, which is liable to duty @ Rs. 52/- per quintal. Thereafter, the appellants filed a refund claim for differential duty, which was rejected. 3. The contention of the appellants is that the duty was paid by them and they filed a refund claim within time limit applicable to the refund. Their submission is that the lower authorities relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty arising out of sale of sugar for supply in the Public Distribution System to the sugar factory by the Ministry of Food and Consumer affairs only. 6. The Commissioner based this finding on the letter dated 13-10-98 issued by the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs. This letter is in respect of supply of sugar in the public Distribution System for the month of Oct., 98 whereas in the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
