1997 (1) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....produce any such certificate the Adjudicating Authority was within his powers to reject the refund claim as unsubstantiated. The appeal lacks substance and is rejected." 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing polyester film falling under heading 3920.31. The appellants submitted price-list in Part II in which they had shown cum-duty price as Rs. 93/-. The cum-duty price was approved by the proper officer.  In the pricelist Part II, the assessable value was shown as Rs. 73.66 per kg. However in the invoice No. 2588/0280,  dated 28-5-1988, the appellants calculated duty amount assuming Rs. 93/- as assessable value.  When the appellants came to know of this mistake, they filed a refund claim o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector and hence the appeal before me. 3. Shri R. Santhanam, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the lower authorities had travelled beyond the direction given by the ld. Collector (Appeals) when the case first came up before him. He submitted that the appellants submitted the contract along with the pricelist in Part II and had got cum-duty price approved by the proper officer. He submitted that it was a mistake while issuing the Gate Pass No. 272, dated 28-5-1988. Duty was calculated on the cum-duty price and not on assessable value. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of M/s. MRF reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 clearly held that whenever cum-duty price is declare....