TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order dated 2-5-1980 allowed the exemption. In between, the Appellants have paid higher duty amounting to Rs. 30,16,981.45 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty One and Forty Five paisa only) for which they have filed a refund claim. Against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Govt. of India issued a Review show cause notice dated 23-4-1981 which was transferred to the Tribunal subsequently and the Tribunal by order dated 22-6-1984 held that the Appellants are not entitled to the exemption, but directed that demand for duty at higher rates can only be made from 23-4-1981. 2. The Assistant Commissioner approved the Classification list at higher rate on 9-8-1984 agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of mistake filed by the Department was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 21-5-1993 on the ground that neither side had brought to Tribunal s notice its earlier Order dated 4-9-1991. 4. As regards the refund claim of the Appellants, it was taken up to the Hon ble High Court of Orissa and as per the said High Court s Order dated 8-2-1991, the same has to be re-decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the learned Counsel, the refund claim has not yet been decided. However, since the refund matter is not a subject of Appeal before this Tribunal, we can only advise the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same urgently, if not decided already. 5. As stated earlier, we have no details of the outcome or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal which was unfortunately set aside on 16-6-1992 and the rectification application against the same was decided on 21-5-1993. Though the learned DR is not able to explain why the Department took time between 22-5-1993 and 22-6-1995 to issue the fresh demand notice except saying that the Appellants were litigating before the higher Courts, we find that the assessments were not final on account of disputed Classification till 4-9-1991 and there is no record that the same was finalized between 4-9-1991 and the date of issue of the demand notice. As such, we have to hold that the demand raised under the impugned notice is within time since the assessments were provisional all along on account of the disputed rate of duty and Classif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
