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 / RSS

2002 (10) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paper based decorative laminated sheets and electric insulators; that they were made to pay duty on electric insulator under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act instead of Chapter 85 at lesser rate of duty; that they filed refund claim for refund of duty paid in excess; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 90/Ref/98, dated 31-7-98, rejected both the refund claims treating the product classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Tariff; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also rejected their appeal under the impugned order. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the appellants had paid duty on electric insulators under Heading 85.46 during the period from 1-9-90 to 9-10-90; that they paid duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Heading 85.46 by the Supreme Court; that the appellants had not challenged the classification of the impugned product made by the Department; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given a specific finding in the impugned order that "the order of the assessment are still operative and the same have neither been challenged nor set aside by the appellate authority"; that in view of these facts, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Flock India case is squarely applicable; that the protest only acts against running of limitation and not against the order itself. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is not disputed by the appellants that the classification list in which they have classified the impu....