2011 (4) TMI 1284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty. 2. Assessee started paying duty on secondary packing material under protest from March, 1996 to September, 1996 and subsequently filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,71,42,093/- on 25-4-2000. Against the said refund claim, show cause notice was issued and assessing officer on having found that claim of assessee for special packing for distance customers were false, rejected the claim of refund. 3. This was challenged by the assessee-respondent in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which its order dated 16-3-2007 set-aside the Order-in-Original, rejecting the objection of the department essentially on the ground that in earlier case order of CESTAT dated 4-10-2002 was accepted by the department and therefore, the issue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tly and strenuously submitted to this Court that Tribunal has erred in circumventing the decision of Supreme Court of India based in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. reported at [2005 (181) E.L.T. 178 (S.C.)]. He has also urged the Court that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the law and directed to refund to the assessee-respondent. 6. On closely scrutinizing the facts in the instant case and the orders of all the adjudicating authorities as well as submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the revenue, this Court finds no valid cause to interfere with the order of Tribunal for the reasons to be followed hereinafter. 7. Tribunal after recording events chronologically concluded that the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1999 to June, 2000 were also set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) and on an appeal filed by the department, the appeal was rejected vide Order No. A/2309/WZB/AHD/2008. Thus, the duty demand pertaining to the period from April, 1994 to February, 1996 and October, 1999 to June, 2000 have been set aside and it has been held that the cost of secondary packing is not includible. For the period in which duty was paid under protest, the refund claim has been filed by the appellant and in view "of the fact as discussed above, the matter has attained finality for the two periods prior to and subsequent to period for which the refund has been claimed. The department cannot open up the issue of includability of cost of secondary packing for this peri....