9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : S.S. Kang 1. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the refund claim of the appellant of Rs.16,350/- is rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of safety Razor Blades and Shaving System. The appellants cleared certain quantity of used Lubricating Oil without payment of duty. The revenue object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmodity- appellant also relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. reported in 2003 (158) ELT 3 (S.C.) to submit that sender is not excisable goods. Hence, the rejection of refund is not sustainable. 6. The contention of revenue is that the duty has been paid by the appellant and the appellant has not challenged the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in the case Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Flock India Ltd. held that in the absence of challenge to the assessment order the refund is not maintainable. In the present case, as the appellants are challenging excisability of the goods which were cleared without payment of duty. In the refund applic ation which is not permissible. Hence the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
