9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - This case a chequered history and, therefore, it would be useful and necessary to set out the salient facts in brief. 2. The respondents/assessees are engaged in the manufacture of two-wheeled and three-wheeled motor vehicles and parts thereof. By an order-in-original dated 2-12-1998, dues of Rs. 30,83,795/- (duty of Rs. 25,88,795.33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it was unsubstantiated and premature and further on the ground that the main issue for re-determination of assessable value as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 31-8-2000, was still pending. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order-in-original dated 28-6-2001, rejected the refund claim on the ground that the issue on merits regarding the assessable value had been re-adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite of notice. 4. We find that even prior to the decision on the refund claim (order dated 28-6-2001), the issue on merits was decided against the assessees by the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 12-6-2001. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly erred in holding that if any dues were to be re-adjudged against the assessees at a later date, the recovery action could have been pursue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
