TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by M/s.Inalsa Appliances Ltd. when the manufacturer did not challenge the assessments and it was held in the case that In absence of any excess payment of duty, the question of the appellants filing a refund claim does not arise. Respondent herein is not eligible to refund claim when the original manufacturer has not sought exemption of the said Notification. It is also the case of the department that Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 is a conditional Notification which can be seen to have been fulfilled only at the time of clearance of the goods from the manufacturer’s end - refund claim not allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Appeal No. E/508/07 - ORDER NO.FO/A/76001/2016 - Dated:- 8-9-2016 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. 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 for 19.07.2016. As the Appeal pertains to the year 2007, therefore, the same cannot be kept pending and is taken up for disposal. 6. The issue involved in the present case is whether an assessment made by the manufacturer can be changed by way of a refund claim filed by the customer. It is observed that similar issue was decided by CESTAT Delhi in the case of Inalsa Appliances Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-IV, Faridabad (supra) where following observations were ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f refund by challenging assessment 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. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by CESTAT Delhi it is held that Respondent herein is not eligible to refund claim when the original manufacturer has not sought exemption of the said Notification. It is also the case of the department that Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 is a conditional Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
