2012 (8) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal Commissioner (A.R.)   Per: S.S. Kang   1. Heard the Additional Commissioner (A.R) for Revenue, as none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. On the last date of hearing also none appeared on behalf of the respondent.   2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby a refund of Rs 21,032/- was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fund of duty already paid. Revenue relies on the decision of the decision of the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (207) ELT 31 (P&H), whereby the Honble High Court held that in case clearance of goods are not on provisional basis, on subsequent price reduction the assessee is not entitled for refund. The appeal filed by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....asis, and payment of duty was also made on the basis of said provisional classification. These facts in the instant case are missing, therefore, in our opinion there is no material in the instant case to establish the fact that either there was a provisional classification or there was an order made under Rule 9B empowering the clearance on the basis of such provisional classification. In the abse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arger Bench for consideration of this matter in case it was not agreeing with the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench Kolkata, as the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 9. We do not find any question of law which may be required to be referred for the opinion of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.   6. In the present case, the as....