2012 (12) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essional rate of duty for sugar manufacturer by a new factory or by a factory which is undergoing expansion of capacity. The appellant in the classification list filed in respect of period of dispute did not claim the benefit of Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983. However, they filed refund claim in February, 1991 claiming refund of duty on the basis they were eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983. Later on the appellant in 1992 filed another classification list claiming benefit of Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983 with retrospective effect. This classification list was not approved by the Assistant Commissioner, who denied the benefit of exemption with retrospectiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that though refund claim was filed in February, 1991 within the limitation period on the basis they are eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983, just because the classification list filed in Feb., 1992 claiming the benefit of the Notification No. 130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983, which was available during the period of dispute, was rejected, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to them. He, however, accepted no filed against the AC's decision refusing to accept the classification filed in February, ....