TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Limited have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27-2-2001. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had held, Since the appellants have not filed refund claim within the time-limit, the claim has correctly been rejected as time-barred. 2. The facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the appeal as indicated above. 3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri P.K. Sahu, learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal had finally held that the appellants were entitled to receive duty free naphtha by production of CT-2 certificate. He submits that their case was governed by Rules 192 to 196 under Chapter X procedure of the Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be rejected. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions of the case law and the relevant rules we find that the case of the appellants is covered by provisions that the appellants bore the burden of duty and did not pass it to anyone. However, there is a relevant date from which six months is to counted as the date of purchase of naphtha. In the instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
