TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /(SMB) - Dated:- 10-7-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the claim for refund of duty of Rs. 41,457/- filed by the appellant was rejected by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat account. On these facts, the counsel has claimed support from High Court s decision in Central Office Mewar Palace Org. v. UOI - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 545 (Raj.). 2. After considering the submissions, I find that none of the decisions cited before me is prima facie applicable to the facts of this case. It is also noticed that the consignment-wise assessment, based on respective invoices, were cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are to the effect that assessment includes self-assessment also. Prima facie it appears that the above proposition is correct for many purposes of the Central Excise Act, but definitely not for the purpose of appeal under Section 35. An appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act should be preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) against an order passed or decision taken by a Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
