1995 (11) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case are as follows : The petitioner had placed an order with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., (BHEL), Ranipet for supply of Electro Static Precipitator (hereinafter called as ESP), by virtue of Notification No. 78/90, dated 20-3-1990 ESP being a pollution Control Equipment, is entitled to concessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem provided the necessary certificate is given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. BHEL manufactured ESP and claimed exception under the above notification. As the certificate from the Ministry of Environment was awaited BHEL had to clear the ESP on payment of full duty at 15% ad valorem. The certificate from the Ministry was received subsequently and it was clarified that ESP would be liable only at the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hout jurisdiction. In any event the petitioner, filed an appeal against this order, but appeared before the 3rd respondent once again. In the second round of litigation the 3rd respondent once again rejected the claim. He held that ESP cleared by BHEL did not attain the essential characteristics of finished ESP under Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation. Because of this BHEL had been called upon to pay duty on ESP at 15%. But in the refund proceedings it was said that the product which was cleared was not ESP at all. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent for the second time. Meanwhile, the Central Board of Excise and Customs through a circular stated that the ESP, cleared in a knocked down condition would be el....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the 3rd respondent is bound to follow the orders of the Collector (Appeals) Madras and grant consequential relief for refund of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 27,74,339/-. Learned counsel contended that the Department has denied the refund on the ground that since the Department has already preferred an appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent the petitioner will not be entitled for refund unless and until a final adjudication is made by CEGAT, Southern Regional Bench. I am unable to countenance the said contention of learned counsel for the respondents. The mere fact that the order of the Appellate Authority is not acceptable to the Department and that it is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless....