9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order, wherein their appeal was rejected on the ground that the appellant has no locus standi to file the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s.CEAT Ltd., Waluj had a plant at Waluj for the manufacture of tyres tubes, flaps, etc. The said plant was sold to the appellants on 29/09/1994. From October 94 onwards, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal was also filed by the appellant against the rejection of the refund claim of M/s.CEAT Ltd. The lower appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal as the appellant cannot be held to an aggrieved person in this case as refund claim has not been filed by them. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II as to why their refund claim should not be rejected on the grounds mentioned above under provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. From the above extract of the show-cause notice, it is clear that the show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant earlier. Therefore, the observation of the lower appellate authority that the appellants have no locus standi to file th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
