1998 (1) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... J.C.Patel, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S.Venkataramani, Member (T)]. -  The Respondents manufacture electronic yarn cleaner falling under Heading 85.43 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed a refund claim for the period 8-4-1989 to 28-4-1989 amounting to Rs. 1,47,341/- on the ground that on account of the amendment of Notification 119/89 of 27-4-1989 they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... upon the Tribunal decision in Digvijay Cement v. Collector - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 631 since in the present case no show cause notice to the Respondents was given within the period, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the review application. Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR by relying upon the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Sivanand Pipe Fittings (1994) 25 ECC 77, contended that the Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und of the amount of duty element which he has retained with him and has not passed on to the customers. This has already now become an ingredient in the amended provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 in its judgment has held that all pending claims and even those granted by High Court and Tribunal fo....