9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily transferred to this Tribunal as appeals under Sectin 35P(2) of the Act. 2. The background of these two cases is the same arising out of the Government of India Order Nos. 922 and 923 of 1973, dated 31-7-1973 which considered the revision applications filed by the appellants against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 53 and 54/71 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. These revision petitions were allowed by the Government of India, accepting the plea of the appellants that sales ex-factory without handling charges is the one to form the basis of assessment. Consequently the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhavanagar granted a refund of Rs. 5,64,006.65 on 5-9-1975 and withdrew the demands for Rs. 2,28,103.79 on 8-9-1975. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings which has already been settled by Government of India but still it ordered for de novo quantifications. Consequental relief granted in pursuance of such order cannot be reopened by raising new contentions. In support of his contentions he relied upon the following decisions :- 1. Indian Aluminium, Co. Ltd., Alupuram v. Supdt. of Central Excise, Alwye Others - 1978 E.L.T. J.650. 2. State Fertilisers Co. Ltd. v. Union of India Others - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 194 (Mad.) = 1980 CENCUS-602-D. 3. Govt. of India and Others v. A. S. Bava - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 625 (Kerala). 4. Shri Krishnamurthy, learned SDR appearing for the respondent justified the order passed by the Board and stated that Board has not reviewed the order passed by Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Govt. of India while exercising review jurisdiction under Section 35A of the Act. With this view, we set aside the impugned orders and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 6. [Order per : I.J. Rao, Member (T)]. - I have perused the order written by my learned brother. I am unable to agree with the proposition made by him in para 6 that a protest for one purpose is a protest for all purposes in respect of levy including claming exemption under Notification. In my opinion this is not a sound principle because a protest should be specific and based on facts. That means the protest has to be confined to a particular aspect like rate of duty, eligibility to exemption, value, etc. The law cannot be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
