9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order]. - The facts in this case are that the appellants were disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 11,967.75. This credit was availed by them on the strength of GP 1 dated 31-3-1994 which was endorsed on 1-4-1994 in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 29-8-1996 disallowed Modvat credit of the stated amount. The part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed and the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur vide his Order dated 17-8-2000 rejected the appeal of the party upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 3. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri A.L. Mathur, Consultant for the appellants and Shri M.D. Singh, JDR for the respondents. Ld. Consultant for the appellants stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.), in para 84 of which it is clearly held that Rule 233B procedure is to be followed in case where duty is paid under protest. 4. I have considered the submissions made before me by both the sides. It may be stated that in this case the refund became due to the appellants as a result of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r giving the reasons for protest. In my view the conditions of Rule 233 B have substantially been complied with in this case. The appellants filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) giving the grounds of their protest in details and in this they ultimately suceeded. Over and above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 107 of their judgment in Mafatlal case cited supra have very clearly held, "It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
