2009 (11) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the rejection of a refund claim. There was a classification dispute between the assessee and the department, which was settled by the original authority, which held that the goods in question were classifiable under heading 85.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. On that basis, a demand of duty was also confirmed against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e order passed by the original authority attained finality. The Tribunal's order sustaining the appellate Commissioner's order on the application of the assessee for restoration of appeal was not appealed against. In this scenario, the lower authorities are right in having rejected the refund claim filed by the assessee. Such a refund claim is directly hit by the ruling of the Apex Court in Mafatl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellant (State of Bihar) granting mining lease to the respondent. In the second case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed an appeal for want of pre-deposit and his order was taken in appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of that appeal on merits, after dispensing with pre-deposit. This action was challenged by the department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved the Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X