TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant Shri Harvinder Singh, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been raised against them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for erroneous refund of amount on account of freight beyond the place of removal on which the appellant has paid duty and claimed refund thereof, in terms of No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emoval. 4. Heard the parties. On merits we are in agreement with the ld. AR that appellant is not required to pay duty on the freight beyond the factory premises and consequently claiming refund thereof. But in the case in hand, the case of the appellant is that appellant's claim has already been sanctioned and the same has not been challenged before the higher forum and therefore, the refund san....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. In our opinion, this was clearly impermissible inasmuch as what is required to be done in a manner prescribed by law, ought to be done 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional power available under Section 35-E of the Act." This order has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Bharat Box Factory Limited and the Tribunal has observed as under:- 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. After hearing the contentions of both sides, we find that the issue emerges before us is that, as refund claims were sanctioned to the assessee, and without challe....