2010 (3) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ged in manufacture of M. S. Tubes/Pipes, clearing its final products at factory gate and also through consignment on provisional basis, for which, the differential duty was discharged at a later stage. The clearance was finalized under Rule 9(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules"). 2. The assessee filed the refund claim for the period with effect from 1-4-1996 to 27-9-1996 on the ground that they paid the excess duty on the price of consignment sales, which was not payable under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). The duty was payable on the normal value ascertainable at factory gate and not on the sale price of consignment agent. Thus, the assessee claimed the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessments, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The argument is that since the inter-departmental letters dated 5-3-1997 and 5-5-1997 cannot legally be termed as assessment orders, so, the assessee was not required to file the appeal against these communications. Raising a variety of arguments, in all, according to the learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal ought to have decided the matter for refund of the amount of excess duty on merits. Hence, he prayed for acceptance of this appeal. 8. Hailing the impugned order, on the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue has urged that in the absence of filing the appeal against the indicated orders by the assessee, the appeal filed by it was not maintainable, which was r....