2016 (8) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sh. B. L. Yadav, Consultant for the appellant Sh. R. K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa As per facts on record the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of steel casting falling under Chapter Heading 73.25 of the first schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 entered into rate contract with M/s Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli.  As per o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of the show cause notice proposing to reject the said claims on the ground that the duty once having been paid by the assessee cannot be refunded by way of subsequent claims made by the assessee, when they have not opted for provisional assessment during the relevant period. Accordingly, the original adjudicating authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the assessment has to be considered as provisional. Non observance of procedure under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 will not render the assessment as final assessment and refund can be granted in such a situation. Reference stands made to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sankhla Udyog vs. CCE, Jaipur-II 2014 (314) ELT 350 (Tri. Del.), K.J.V. Alloys Conductors P. Ltd. vs. CCE, H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 658 (Tri. Bang.) and Bharat BIjlee Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur 2010 (262) ELT 369 (Tri. Mumbai). 7. As against the above decisions, ld. DR for the appellant relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Munjal Auto Industries vs. CCE&ST, Vadodara 2014 (307) ELT 577 (Tri. Ahmd.), wherein it was observed that price revised downward at a later date subsequent to clearance of goods from the appella....