CCE Vs. SUNRISE STRUCTURALS AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above -captioned appeals, the controversy centres around the question as to whether the respondents are entitled to the refund of duty paid by them on the structure of iron and steel or not.

(2.) The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents filed classification list showing classification of their goods i.e. structures of iron and steel under Chapter 73 and sub -heading 7308.20 of the CETA. Their classification list was approved by the A.C. vide order dated 12.9.89 and the respondents paid duty under the said order on the parts of structure. However, it is only later on, on 18.12.89, they made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner that their goods were not chargeable to duty. Their representation was then followed by the refund claim of duty, which was filed on 28.12.89. The matter has been received back from the Apex Court for deciding it afresh after going into the question as to whether the goods of the respondents are chargeable to duty or not.

(3.) The learned SDR has, however, stated that question regarding excisability and durability of the goods in question is not required to be gone into as the refund claim of the respondents on the face of it stands barred by the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (71) ECC 4 (SC): 2000 (120) ELT 285 for having not challenged the order of the A.C. regarding assessment.