9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder]. This appeal has come up for hearing before me on the question of refund. The appellant mixes phenol formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde to produce resins which fell under item 15A(1) of the then existing Schedule I to the Central Excise Act. The question involved is whether the mixing of phenol formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde would amount to manufacture and the resultant pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1B of the Central Excise Act will be applicable or not. The six months time limit provided in Section 11B will not be applicable in my view because the reason under which the amount was demanded and paid namely the Tribunal s order was itself challenged in appeal. Therefore the question of separate letter written by the appellant protesting against the payment may not arise. 2. Such type of prot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal and the amount paid in fulfilling the statutory requirements under Section 35F of the Act becomes refundable to them, the question of bringing in the time limit prescribed under Section 11B or insisting on a separate letter of protest before payment, does not arise. We therefore see no merit in the appeal. Hence we dismiss the appeal and the stay application may also be treated as dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal/reference/ Writ Petition, it will certainly be a payment under protest; in such a case it is obvious that it should not be necessary to lodge the protest as provided by Rule 233B. 4. From the reading of both the judgments of the Tribunal, it will be clear that when the very question has been challenged before the Supreme Court, the question of filing a separate letter of protest will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
