(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Revisional Authority ruled in favour of the petitioners and set aside the demand duty passed by the Superintendent, Valsad. Despite such decision, the competent authority, vide impugned order dated 12.10.2010, rejected the petitioners refund claim on the ground that the duty was required to be paid. He contended that once the Revisional Authority had decided the issue in favour of the petitioners, the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, could not have rejected the revisional claim on the same grounds.
Issue Notice for final disposal returnable on 30.01.2013. Direct service permitted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Jyoti Page 2 of 2