TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommon in all these appeals, a common order is being passed. 2. After hearing Shri K. Veeraraghavan, learned Additional Central Govt. Standing Counsel assisted by Shri G.S. Menon, learned SDR, for the Revenue, and S/Shri V.S. Venugopalan, Saravana Sowmiyan, M. Venkataraman and N. Venkataraman, learned Counsels for the Respondents, we find that the facts in brief relevant for decision in all these cases are that the respondents in all these cases are 'body-builders' inasmuch as they were converting chassis into 'goods transport vehicles'. The dispute was with regard to the activity undertaken by the respondents and the question was whether the building of body on the chassis of transport vehicles would be covered by the levy under Section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.), the refund based on the case of Ram Body Builders (supra) could not be granted and/or it has to be established whether any one or all the respondents herein were parties before the Supreme Court in above said decision. (c) They also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 324 that even for unconstitutional levy it has to be established that incidence of duty has not been passed on to others. 4. In view of this submission, they do not stress on the other issues and has referred to the validity of the protests etc. mentioned in the appeals. They have requested for an order of remand in all these cases to deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his purpose, Paras 70, 83, 84 85 of the reported decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. was read in extenso by the learned Counsel Shri N. Venkataraman and it was submitted that the assessment in his case is still not final and there was no such contest in the show cause notice. He submitted that the protest is unquestionably admitted by the department, that the duty has been paid under protest, has not been adjudicated by any order on the protest lodged, which would have enabled them to move and fight their "own battle". In this view, he submitted that they are entitled to the refund and the departmental appeals should be rejected. 6. We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the Paras 99(iv), 70, 83 to 85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
