9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the material was worked upon, waste product namely methanol emerged. The Revenue authorities wrote to the appellants that since there is no evidence to show that the job worker had cleared the said waste material on payment of duty, therefore appellant as a principal manufacturer should pay the duty thereon. As a sequel to that letter of the Range Superintendent dated 18-10-94, the appellants debited their RG. 23A-Part-II Account with the said sum as per Superintendent's letter on 28-10-94. Few days later, on 2-11-94, they wrote a letter informing the department that said payment was made under protest as they had not been able to find out whether the job worker had also paid the duty thereon. It was much later on 10-2-95 that Range ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early states that there is violation of sub-rule (8) of Rule 233B. Further, the letter cannot also be treated as a refund claim in view of note appended below to sub-rule (8) ibid. Therefore in either case appellants have no justification in holding that the letter which was submitted to the department after payment of duty and not before the payment of duty can be regarded as a valid letter of protest. He refers to provisions of sub-rules 1, 2 and 3 and contends that a plain reading thereof clearly shows that such letter of protest has to be submitted in acknowledgement obtained from the Proper Officer. This having not been done, a basic condition prescribed by sub-rule has been violated and hence sub-rule (8) is attracted. Therefore, he s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim for refund. 8. In view of note appended after the sub-rule (8), we cannot also accept the position that the said letter of protest itself should be treated as refund claim. Therefore on both counts we are unable to find any merit in this appeal. 9. With respect to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay cited by Ld. Advocate we find that said observation of Hon'ble High Court that the rule is procedural and not mandatory was made in the context of a factual situation where that refund claim arose in favour of party out of a revision order passed by the competent authority on merits. In this case there is no such pre-adjudication leading to the refund. Therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the Hon'ble High Court of Bomba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
