2018 (6) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce of removal on which the appellant has paid duty and claimed refund thereof, in terms of Notification No. 52/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, the refund claim has already been sanctioned and the same has not been appealed against. In that circumstance, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable in the light of the decision in the case of Bharat Box Factory Limited vide Final order No. 62192-62193/2018 dated 20.03.2018 which has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Shillong vs. Jellalpore Tea Estate - 2011 (268) ELT 14 (Guj.). 3. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of J&K Pigments Pvt. Limit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one in that manner only or not at all. 14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the prescription of law required that the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed on 29-4-2002 could be challenged only by resorting to Section 35-E of the Act. The Revenue could not initiate collateral proceedings to set aside the order dated 30-4-2002 by resorting to the enabling power under Section 11A of the Act. 15. Consequently, we are of the opinion that : (i) Section 11A of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the case since the issue raised did not concern any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or valuation of any excisable goods. The issue raised by the assessee related to its entitlement t....