1997 (9) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. -  When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, there is a request from them to decide the case on merit. 2. The Appellants filed refund claim on the ground that duty had been paid by them under mistake of law in respect of nozzles and nozzle holders which were purchased and the same were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whether the appellant who are not manufacturers of the nozzles and nozzle holders are entitled for claiming the refund of duty which they had paid to their manufacturers when they had bought these for their use in L 6 premises. To answer this question the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules framed thereunder must be clearly understood. Section 3 of the Act is the chargin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e demand is raised against him under Section 11A of the Act. It is not raised against the various consumers who buy the goods from the manufacturer. There is no doubt that the word used in Section 11B which deals with the grant of refund is "any person" but any person does not imply any person in world at large. It has to be a person who has paid the duty and only he is eligible to claim the refun....