2004 (4) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their refund claims, for the period 1985-1994, in respect of the duty paid on PCC/RCC poles manufactured and cleared from their Pole Yards should not be rejected. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondents are eligible for refund of the said duty. The lower appellate authority has followed a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), upheld by the Supreme Court. That decision, which was based on the facts of that case, was to the effect that KSEB was not the manufacturer of the poles and that the goods had been manufactured by independent contractors. In the present appeal of the department, the High Court's decision in KSEB's case has been distinguished on facts. The appellant has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that the adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. If this position is accepted then the provisions for adjudication in the Act and the Rules, the provision for appeal in the Act and the Rules will lose their relevance and the entire exercise will be rendered redundant. This position in our view, will run counter to the scheme of the Act and will introduce an element of uncertainty in the entire process of levy and collection of excise duty. Such a position cannot be countenanced. The view taken by us also gain support from the provision in ....