2005 (3) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....simha Murthy, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - The appellant's claim for refund of CVD paid on imported raw asbestos fibre was rejected by the Original Authority in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] wherein the appellants was also one of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lly collected the duty from the appellants. The appellants paid the duty under protest. Otherwise the Department would not allow them to clear the goods from the factory. When an amount has been illegally collected, the same should be refunded to them. He relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kuil Fireworks Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [1997 (95) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r-in-Original). From these facts, it is very clear that the appellants paid the duty only after the Supreme Court vacated the stay. Hence their contention that they had already paid duty even when the stay was in operation is not correct as per the records. These facts have been gone through by both the Original authority and the first Appellate authority. In these circumstances, it is clear that ....