9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.28/Kol-III/07 dated 21.03.2007, issued on 29.05.2007, passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata as first appellate authority. Under this Order-in-Appeal dated 21.03.2007 first appellate authority has held that refund claim filed by the Respondent herein is admissible under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case law Commissioner v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. [2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC)]. 4. Heard the learned AR and perused the case records. 5. Appellant did not appear for personal hearing today. On an earlier occasion when the case was fixed for hearing on 19.05.2016 also Appellant requested for adjournment. Respondent vide letter dated 24.06.2016 also indicated that the next hearing is scheduled f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned juicers has been challenged by M/s. AAR AAR Plastics. It is settled law that the assessment of the goods cannot be challenged at the end of the receivers of the goods. As till this time, the assessments had not been challenged, the duty of excise paid by the manufacturer has been correctly paid. This was the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of Flock India Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment of goods manufactured and cleared by a third party. We, therefore, find no merit in the present matter and reject the appeal." 7. In the above case juicers were manufactured by M/s.AAR AAR Plastics and received by Appellant M/s. Inalsa Appliances Ltd.. Refund claim in the relied upon case was also filed by M/s.Inalsa Appliances Ltd. when the manufacturer did not challenge the assessments. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
