9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are as under :- The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner had, by order dated 31-3-95, disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 47,723/- to the appellants on various grounds The assessee reversed the Modvat credit in their RG-23A Part-11 on 6-9-95. While doing so, they recorded their protest by remarking under protest in the remarks column of the register. The order of the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties below is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the assessee. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. Ld. Consultant, Shri R.G. Bhagwan, submits that the limitation provisions of Section 11B were not applicable to the present case, in which the payment of duty by way of reversal of Modvat credit had been made under protest. He points out that such protest had also been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. I have examined the submissions. It is true that the reversal of the Modvat credit was made on 6-9-95 under protest remarked against the entry of reversal in the RG-23A Part-II. It also appears to be true that the above reversal of the credit under protest was noted by the assessee in their RT-12 Returns as well. But any protest registered otherwise than in the manner provided under Rule 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal/ reference/writ petition, it will certainly be a payment under protest; in such a case, it would not be necessary to lodge the protest as provided by Rule 233B. In the instant case, the Modvat credit was reversed by the assessee on their own, otherwise than in pursuance of any orders of Court granting stay, suspension, injunction or the like. It would follow that, in such a situation, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim requires to be held to be unaffected by the time-bar provisions of Section 11B :- (i) Mahalakshmi Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh [1995 (80) E.L.T. 352 (Tribunal)] (ii) Flash Labs Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [1996 (88) E.L.T. 782 (Tribunal)] 6. I have examined the above case law and I find that none of the decisions would hold good after the Supreme Court s verdict in Mafa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
