2005 (3) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mani, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - The appellants are manufacturers of cotton yarn. They market their product through consignment agents. During the material period (6/95 to 9/95), they removed the goods on payment of duty under Rule 52A invoices and their consignment agent sold the goods from their Depot under their own invoices. In one such instance, the price (as shown in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the same period, the appellants claimed refund of duty of Rs. 1,54,691/- and this claim was also rejected on the same ground by the original authority and this decision was also affirmed by the first appellate authority. Appeal Nos. 474 & 475/2003 of the assessee are against the decision of the lower appellate authority. 2. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es inasmuch as neither of the invoices mentioned serial numbers of the cotton yarn bundles in terms of the long-established practice of textile industry. Learned JDR points out that this has been admitted by the appellants in reply to the show cause notices. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. Factory invoices issued by the appellants under Rule 52A were addressed to the consignment agent....