1987 (6) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the Central Excise Department, despite clear judgments and guidelines from the Courts. This is one such case. 2. The petitioners were paying excise duty on aluminium dross and skimmings which were not even waste products. It appears, that by a judgment given by this High Court by Mr. Justice Lentin, in the matter of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and another v. A.K. Bandyopadhyay and others, report .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder "remarks" that they were not liable to any excise duty and they referred to the decision of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. This classification was accepted by the department. Yet, they would not refund the excise duty paid by the petitioners. However, by a letter dated March 28, 1981 the Assistant Collector informed the petitioners that the petitioners may file their refund claim in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X