1996 (5) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the Respondents. [Order per : P.K. Desai, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the captioned order in appeal confirming the Order-in-Original dated 21-9-1984, where the refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected as time barred. 2. Shri Patil, the ld. advocate, appearing for the appellants, submits that pursuant to the decision of the Gujarat High Court, they realised t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed on 28-10-1983 and the period covered is 1-3-1975 to 28-2-1981. Thus the period covered is beyond six months permitted under Section 11B of the CESA. The classification lists do not mention that the duty was being paid under protest. Even before introduction of Rule 233B, it was necessary for the party to lodge a protest for claiming exemption from applicability of the limitation. That is not do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eration. To negative the contention, one has to simply refer the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Miles India reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (SC) and also in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (SC) as also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Britannia Industries Limited - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 170 (Tribunal) for holding that the Tribunal being the st .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X