9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per: V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)]. - Under order, dated 26.2.1982, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Udaipur sanctioned refund claims of the appellants M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd., in respect of additional duty of customs paid on 21.11.1980, 12.3.1981 and 8.6.1981. This duty had been paid by them at the times of removal from the bonded warehouse to which the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, dated 21-2-1981 in support of their contention that duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act had been paid under protest and hence there can be no question of bar of limitation in preferring the refund claims. As already stated the Collector has upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector in respect of refund of duty paid on 12-3-1981, 9-4-1981 and 8-6-1981. He set aside the orders of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated in para 4 of his notice as follows : "And whereas, on examination of the said refund order, the undersigned is of the tentative view that the interpretation adopted by the Assistant Collector, Udaipur in holding the refund order to be within the time limit on the basis of a letter of protest that related to refund claim in another context is erroneous/incorrect/ improper." 6. Thus the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... save from the bar of limitation payments made subsequent to that letter, but the said letter would not save (from the bar of limitation) the payments made earlier. Nor could it be treated by itself a claim for refund. 7. In the above view, the order of the Collector, setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector so far as the duty paid on 21-11-1980, is upheld and this appeal is dismissed.< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
