2003 (11) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion and seeking the same under CET sub-heading 3926.90 from April, 1987 onwards. The dispute on classification came to be finally decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Fenner India v. UOI Civil Appeal No. 4600/89 [1995 (77) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.)] and in the case of the present appellants (Civil Appeal No. 4427), holding that conveyor belting fell for classification under CET sub-heading 3926.90. This heading carried lower rate of duty than the duty payable under CET sub-heading 3920.12 under which the appellants had paid duty under protest and therefore, claimed for refund of excess duty of Rs. 9,91,29,859/- paid between 22-4-1987 and 31-3-1994 by the appellants, stating that the claim was filed on behalf of their customers (consignees) vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is an admitted fact that the appellants have passed the incidence of duty to their customers and as such amount of duty is not refundable to them. There is no substance in their plea that under Rule 173S only they could have filed the refund claim instead of the various subsidiaries of the Coal India spread all over the country. Rule 173S only provides that any person claiming refund of any duty shall make an application in duplicate for refund of duty in the proper form to the Asstt. Collector having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturer. The rule further provides that an application for refund shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. It is difficult to apprehend as to why the subsidiaries of Coal ....