Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1997 (12) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es such as knobs, handles, drums, spindles, springs, panels etc. During the period from 1-4-1978 to 28-2-1979, they had purchased these accessories totalling value of Rs. 9,60,671/- on which they paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,033.55 @ 5% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Under Notification No. 68/71-C.E., dated 29-5-1971, plastic cabinets falling under Tariff Item 15A(2) and made out of either duty paid polystyrene falling under Tariff Item 15A(1) or made out of scrap of plastic were exempt from the payment from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. However, the appellants paid duty of Rs. 1,13,714.57 during the above mentioned period @ 5% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68. They filed an application ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e present appeal against the portion of the order of the Collector (Appeals) rejecting their claim for refund of duty on plastic cabinets as time barred. 2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri A.K. Madan, learned DR. The authorities below have rightly held that the original claim which related to refund of duty paid on bought out items was independent and separate from the subsequent claim for refund of duty paid on goods manufactured by the appellants and both were independent and separate claims and the claim for refund of duty on goods manufactured could, therefore, not be considered as in continuation of or as an amendment of the original refund claim. Hence, we see no reason to interfere....