2005 (10) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri R.N. Viswanath, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed against OIA No. 138/2003-C.E., dated 7-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) II, Bangalore. 2. The appellant purchased a scraped TV Plant (a) from M/s. BEL for Rs. 30 lakhs. They paid an additional sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- as excise duty. They felt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y duty. They also paid the duty under protest. Hence, there cannot be any time bar. Further he said that the appellant firm had borne the central excise duty and therefore there is no question of unjust enrichment. Hence, he requested the Bench to pass a favourable order. 5. Learned SDR submitted that the refund claim is clearly barred by limitation because the duty was paid between 9th Ja....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with all the three issues in his order. The appellant accepted the tender conditions stipulated by M/s. BEL, classified the goods under Heading 7204.30 and removed them to the Company after payment of duty. It is not for the appellants to challenge classification. The appellants dispute the classification made by BEL. In that case, they should have taken up the matter with M/s. BEL even before pu....