9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the impugned order dated 3.8.2009 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants were registered manufacturers of LPG cylinders and cleared the LPG cylinders to the oil companies for the period 1.7.1999 to 31.10.2000. During the subject period, the oil companies i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim filed by the appellant for the period 1999-2001 was time barred. After following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on time bar and aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also upheld the Order-in-Original; hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. None appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther stated that the prices being contracted one there is no need for provisional assessment and limitation stipulated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable. In support of this submission, they have relied upon the decision rendered in the case of CCE Vs. R. M. Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.: 2006 (198) ELT 48. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 31 (P&H) iii. Mauria Udyog Ltd.: 2008 (221) ELT A120 (SC) iv. Maharashtra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.: 2010 (259) ELT 369 (Bom.) v. Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd.: 2004 (166) ELT 474 (Tri.-Del.) vi. Universal Cylinders Ltd.: 2004 (178) ELT 898 (Tri.-Del.) 7. After considering the submissions of learned AR as well as the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant, I am of the considered view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
