Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (6) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i U.H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  All three appeals involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants herein imported a consignment of 'Tami flu' capsules 75 mg. (life saving drugs) and 'Tarceva Lacquered' tablets (life saving drugs). The consignment forming the subject matter of appeal No. C/478/2007 wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng abatement based on MRP due to EDI system error and subsequently claim for refund of CVD of Rs. 4,87,630/- was filed in June, 2006. 4. All three claims for refund was rejected on the ground that refund claim was not maintainable in the absence of any challenge by way of appeal to the assessment orders by relying upon the Apex Court decision in CCE v. Flock India Ltd. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M.R.P. basis as per Notification 2/2005-C.E. as amended by Notification 4/2005-C.E., dated 23-02-2005 was not available due to recession of the notification which was factually incorrect as the notification had neither been rescinded nor superseded at the time of import. Therefore, as held by the Tribunal in the case of I.P. Rings Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 61 which has been followed....