9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II against the Order dated 7-7-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The brief facts are that the Respondents manufactures textile Auxiliaries, Chemicals, Dyes, Pigments. They filed a classification list in March 1982 classifying 12 of their pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Tariff Item 68. However, we are paying duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) under protest . This classification list was approved by the Asstt. Collector on 28-12-1983 approving classification of goods under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. On 9-3-1994 the Respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,94,163/- claiming that differential duty paid between 29-3-1982 to 8-1-1984 on the grounds that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist. 2. Shri D. Gurnani, ld. DR contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in accepting the Respondents submission that they were paying duty under protest because they have not followed the procedure set out under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules for payment of duty under protest. Whatever protest they have made by endorsement in the classification list had come to an end, accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Collector only on 28-12-1983. We observe that in such a situation payment of duty during the period pending the final approval of the classification list has been held to be payment of duty under protest by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Samrat International v. Collector 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) = 1991 (33) ECR 19. In the present case also the Respondents have filed the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
