1996 (7) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. -  Appellants are manufacturers of textile yarns and fabrics and liable to pay excise duty on manufactured products cleared by them. They were submitting monthly returns in form RT 12. It appears Superintendent purported to complete the assessment under RT 12 return, holding that differential duty of Rs. 75,373.07 has to be paid ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were set aside, while confirming the demands made within the time limit. There is no dispute that so far as the demand of Rs. 75,373.07 was concerned, it was beyond the time limit and, therefore, set aside by the Collector (Appeals). The Department did not challenge this order before the Tribunal. The matter rested there. Meanwhile, the appellants submitted refund claim for Rs. 98,096.11 on some ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tor (Appeals) is erroneous. The facts recited by us in the previous paragraph would clearly show that the appellants challenged the completion of assessment under RT 12 return by application to the Assistant Collector who, therefore, felt it necessary to raise a demand and consider the same after due notice to the appellants. That order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals). The order passed by....