9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution. The respondents had addressed a letter to the Department on 16-11-1971 stating that in their opinion, DMEU, DMPU, and GLYOXAL based padding solutions are not excisable and they will be paying excise duty on the products manufactured, namely DMEU, DMPU under protest. The respondents subsequently filed the refund claim on 19-9-1978 for Rs. 10,15,768.30 for duty paid on four products viz. DMEU (Prym. E), DMPU, BECKAMINE and Prema fresh (all padding solutions) under Item 15A Central Excise Tariff for the period from 1-6-1972 to 20-7-1977 on the ground that up to 28-2-1975 these goods were not excisable under 15A of Central Excise Tariff and thereafter they were dutiable only under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. For the purpose of limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification list filed for the products other than DMEU. 4. Shri D. D. Gwalani, the learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that they had included all the items in their letter of protest and they were protesting against the levy of duty on padding solutions as such. This position in law has come to be accepted by the department. Therefore, there was no reason to modify the order of the Collector (Appeals). He further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement reported in AIR 1989 SC 1496 India Cement v. Collector of Central Excise, wherein in similar circumstances the Supreme Court has held that the letter raising objection against levy should be considered as a letter of protest. He also referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of DMEU. In this respect the India Cement case cited and relied on by the respondents (supra) decided by the Supreme Court is based on similar facts and also related to the period when there was no particular form prescribed for protesting against the levy of payment of duty under protest. From the perusal of the letter of protest dated 16-11-1971 we also find that they had raised the objection against the levy of duty on padding solutions as such. Therefore, we are of the view that the reasoning given by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order is well-founded and we under the circumstances see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 6. The appeal filed by the department is therefore rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
