Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S.High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 24 August, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


Appeal No.C/103/2007


[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.CUS.16/2007    dated 11.01.2007   passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]


For approval and signature:

Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President


1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT	 (Procedure) Rules, 1982?					      :
2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?				      	      :
3.	Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								      :
4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							      :

	
M/s.High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd.
Appellants

         
       Versus
     

Commissioner of  Customs, Chennai
Respondent

Appearance :

Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 24.08.2009 Date of decision : 24.08.2009 Final Order No.____________ In this case, the claim for refund of duty paid as a result of denial of the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 as amended has been rejected on the ground that the assessees did not challenge the order of assessment.

2. I have heard both sides. In the light of the apex Courts judgement in Collector Vs Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T.285 (S.C.)] and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)], both of which have been followed by the larger Bench in Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Vs Eurotex Indus. & Exports Ltd. [2007 (216) E.L.T.137 (Tri.-LB)], holding that unless assessment order in pursuance of which the duty paid is challenged and set aside/modified the refund claim is not maintainable, and hence I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 24-08-2009 ??

??

??

??

1 4