2008 (9) TMI 247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - This case a chequered history and, therefore, it would be useful and necessary to set out the salient facts in brief. 2. The respondents/assessees are engaged in the manufacture of two-wheeled and three-wheeled motor vehicles and parts thereof. By an order-in-original dated 2-12-1998, dues of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing, rejection of the claim on the ground that it was unsubstantiated and premature and further on the ground that the main issue for re-determination of assessable value as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 31-8-2000, was still pending. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order-in-original dated 28-6-2001, rejected the refund claim on the ground that the issue on merits regarding the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rds - none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. 4. We find that even prior to the decision on the refund claim (order dated 28-6-2001), the issue on merits was decided against the assessees by the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 12-6-2001. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly erred in holding that if any dues were to be re-adjudged against the assessees at a later date....