2011 (9) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the  respondent   Per: Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)   There are seven appeals filed by the appellant Jindal Saw Ltd., and one appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Export Promotion, Mumbai-I. As all these appeals relate to the same issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal.   2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er M/s Jindal Saw Ltd. are in appeal before us against the said Order-in-Appeal.   2.1 The appellant also filed a refund claim before the Asst. Commissioner, who vide order dated 25.2.2009 rejected the refund claim of the appellant against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 15.9.2009 allowed their appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal of the department is factually incorrect and they have challenged the assessment order which was rejected by the lower appellate authority and against the said order they are in appeal before this Tribunal. Notification 77/08 is dated 13.6.2008 and therefore takes effect from the midnight of 12th and 13th June 2008 and since on 13.6.2008, ....