2017 (7) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Sh. J.V.S. Chakravarthy, (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. These two appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 20 & 21/2007 (V-II) CUS dated 10.08.2007. Since both the appeals raise a common question of law they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are both the appellants are exporters of F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hority upheld the orders of lower authorities and rejected the appeal filed. 3. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants took us through the entire records and submits that the issue of agricultural produce cess on the shrimps and prawns has been settled once and for all and it has been held that the said cess is not payable. He would submit that the appellant having paid the said cess at th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not be retained by the Government is the ratio of the judgment in the case of Ahmed Khan & Sons [2001 (132) ELT 764 (Tri. Kol)]. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that appellants herein had discharged the agricultural produce cess during the period June 2001 to October 2001 and again in June 2002. On a spe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the absence of any documentary evidence to show that they were infact contesting the matter of leviability of cess on the prawns and shrimps, we find that both the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim of the appellants for the refund of the amounts of cess paid. The lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim on the limitation as it is on the record that appellant had ....