2018 (10) TMI 947

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri G. M. Sharma, AR ORDER Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Bluck Drugs falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 29415000 and 29420090 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As the appellant was located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) but hold that extended period is not invokable therefore, demand for the period September 2005 to February 2010 was dropped. Against the said order, the appellant is in appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that initially they filed the refund claim and the same was sanctioned to them as outward freight forms a part transaction value an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd that the issue emerges before us is that, as refund claim was sanctioned to the appellant, and without challenging those assessment orders of refund claims sanctioning thereof, can be challenged by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act or not. The said issue is exempted by the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Jellalpur Tea Estate (supra), wherein the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X