TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants paid excess duty of Rs. 1,28,558/- on 19-3-07 in respect of Bill of Entry No. 331107, dated 15-3-07. He states that the fault was entirely on the part of the appellants to wrongly declare the Sl. No. 18 of the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-02. Later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment. 2. It is clearly a case of total non-application of mind on the part of the Commissioner who has passed the impugned order. From the very fact that the appellants had filed an appeal before him, it is obvious that they were aggrieved by the assessment. It is now settled law that unless the assessment is varied, the appellants cannot get refund of excess duty. The lower appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
