2003 (8) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....For the Petitioner : M. V. Seshachala, B. N. Suresh Babu For the Respondent : Arvind Kumar ORDER Petitioners in this petition is challenging Annexure-J an endorsement issued by the respondent. Petitioners ere governed by the excise laws. Petitioners refer to Annexure-A notification with regard to payment of duty. Petitioner in terms of annexure-A sought permission of the third respondent to ent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n these circumstances, petitioner sought for refund of the excise duty. Assistant Commissioner rejected the request for refund in terms of Annexure-F. Aggrieved by the same petitioner approached the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner allowed the appeal in terms of the order dated 27-9-1999. The Commissioner of Central Excise, filed an appeal against the order of the Appellate Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....today, there. is no order supporting the petitioner in the matter of refund made over to him. Learned counsel is unable to show any provision of law with regard to retention of money particularly in the light of reference application. Annexure-J is fully justified on the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that his client was made to believe that no duty is leviable. Learne....