TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r: 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 allowed. 3. The respondents are engaged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 assessee also dismissed by the Hon ble Suprem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 absence of the same, we cannot accept the argument of t....