2008 (1) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....1987 onwards they started paying duty on the goods under CET sub-heading 4601.00.  On 9.7.1987 a show cause notice was issued to them proposing to classify the goods under CET sub-heading 4601.00 and proposing recovery of differential duty of Rs.1,70,624.28 for the period 1.1.1987 to 15.4.1987.  The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 7.3.1988; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner; the matter was carried further in appeal to the Tribunal which, vide its order dated 27.5.2004, upheld the classification as determined by the excise authorities, and demand, but remanded the issue of availability of modvat credit and cum-duty benefit.  On 23.9.2004, the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in appeal No. E/328/91, holding that substantive right to modvat credit cannot be denied for minor technical infirmities and directing consequential relief.  Consequent upon the Tribunal's order, the assessee wrote to the range Superintendent on 18.3.1997 informing him that they are entitled to modvat credit as per the Tribunal's order dated 11.2.1997.  On 20.7.2004, the assessees filed their claim for transitional credit which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 27.10.2004 on the ground of time bar.  The lower appellate authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim by order dated 31.8.2005; assessees have filed appeal No. E/3378/05 against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. I have heard....