Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (10) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... manufacture, they used to get "blended waste" in respect of which the Department had insisted them to reverse the credit of inputs. The dispute whether such credit had to be reversed was finally settled vide Final Order No. 877/2003, dated 28-10-03 of this Tribunal, wherein it was decided that the assessee was not required to reverse input credit on clearance of waste arising in the course of manufacture of final product, in terms of Rule 57D of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the pendency of the appeal against the order of the jurisdictional Commissioner directing the assessee to reverse the credit relating to the inputs in the waste generated, the assessee had paid duty towards the credit relatable to the waste during th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd of Rs. 4,88,480/-. In this case the assessee had debited the amount from RG 23A and intimated the Department about their protest in seven days and obtained acknowledgement. Ld. SDR reiterates the arguments contained in the appeal memorandum and relies on the decision of the apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1998 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] case to the effect that any person paying duty under protest had to necessarily follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 233B to consider the payment to have been made under protest. As the protest had been lodged with the Department a week after payment, the assessee's claim had been time-barred and the impugned order allowing refund of this amount had to be vacated. 5. Ld. Counsel for the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t's judgment in Mauria Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-II [2002 (146) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.)]. In the above judgment the apex Court had ruled that the assessee's appeal could not be dismissed by application of principle of merger as the Revenue had obtained a decision against the original order from the appellate authority as regards the reduction of penalty whereas the assessee's appeal had challenged the entire order. She also relied on the apex Court judgment in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2001 (129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) = 2000 (07) LCX 0013 (SC)] in support of her argument. She argued that the Revenue appeal was therefore maintainable. 6. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both sides, it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates