2003 (1) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants, M/s, NEPC India Ltd., are customers of the excisable goods, manufactured by M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. They filed a refund claim for duties on account of the fact that duties have been paid by the manufacturer. Notwithstanding that they were filed exemption under Notification No. 205/88 and this duty paid by the manufacturer was borne by the claimant i.e. customer and same should b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (b) The interpretation given in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mysore Acetate & Chemicals Co. Ltd. 1990 (47) ELT 687 (T) by the Commissioner was not correct. (c) The substantive benefit of Section 11B to them cannot be denied and there is no estoppels against the low and therefore, even if the classification list has been approved the same should be reviewed. (d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 285 (SC) wherein it was held that if the earlier order demand the classification of goods is not challenged despite being eligible such order cannot be questioned by filing refund claim on the ground that the adjudicating authority has committed an error in passing the earlier order and submitted that in this case it is an admitted position that the benefit of notification was not claimed under t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... available to the manufacture. Therefore, the benefit of the notification in this case would not be available including to a buyer, who are situated at distance, after the manufacture. (b) In this view of the matter we cannot grant the benefit of the notification to the buyer and would agree with the learned DR's submissions that the buyer be beware, of what he is buying. (c)....