9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an appeal against non-refund of an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs which was deposited by the assessee on the insistence of the Department. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the assessee on 25-10-1991. They saw some stocks of raw oils and vegetable ghee which were alleged to be unaccounted for. Shri S.M. Agarwal, Managing Director w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable under protest. He submits that in one of the challans the word `under protest appears under that challan. The assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. one lakh. He submits that another sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was deposited under another challan of 1-11-1991 and that in respect of that challan, the assessee had immediately intimated to the Department that the amount was being deposited provisionally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant for Rs. 2.5 lakhs may be allowed. 4. Shri D.K. Nayyar, ld. JDR along with Shri Sanjeev Srivastava appeared for the Revenue and submitted that all types of claims are covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247. He submits that the deposit is not covered by Section 11B and as such the refund cannot be allowed. He reiter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt a letter stating that the amount is being paid under protest and that the same may be adjusted against duty, if any, leviable on the goods or arising in this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal order held that The refund claim in this case was therefore of duty and within the purview of Section 11B which does not provide for computation of six months period from the date of adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
