1987 (7) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Member (J)]. - Under letter dated 14-5-1982 the Superintendent of Central Excise had called upon the appellants M/s. Hyderabad Iron Steel Works Ltd. to pay the differential duty for the raw material received by the appellants from M/s. Hyderabad Asbestos during the months of October, 1980, November, 1980 and January, 1981. This was in connection with their earlier payment of duty on job char .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tor (Appeals) observes in paragraph 4 of his order that the contention that the demand was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 appears to be correct since the demand was issued on 14-5-1982 relating to duty payable from October, 1980 to January, 1981 and there had been no allegation in the demand justifying the larger period of limitation but that the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent was made only because demand was made therefor. In the circumstances the payment cannot be said to have been voluntary. To hold that an assessee to whom a demand is issued for payment of duty the recovery of which has become barred by time could validly resist the demand but that if, following the demand, he makes the payment but then appeals against the demand he cannot be heard in support of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X