2002 (7) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Jagdish Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member(J)]. -  Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund, claimed by the appellants, was rejected. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE tapes/strips. During the period from 6-10-86 to 5-6-90, appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t HDPE tapes, manufactured by the appellants on which the central excise duty was paid, were further used in the manufacture of fabric and proviso (c) to Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, specifically, provides that amount of excise duty determined as refundable shall instead of being credited to the fund be paid to an assessee if the amount is relatable to refund of excise duty paid on go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....res were arrived at as per data supplied by the appellants. After considering these figures, the adjudicating authority gave a finding of fact that during the relevant period, duty payable is more than the refund claimed by the assessee and there was no excess payment made by the assessee. In fact, the appellants paid less duty after classification of the goods under Chapter 39 during the relevant....