9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard both sides. The department is in appeal against the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority allowing the refund to the respondents with the following observations :- I have carefully gone through the records of the case and also heard the appellants during personal hearing held on 30-6-2004. The refund claim in this case is rejected by the Assistant Commissioner sole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll take the credit on the said items as and when they will draw for consumption. The copy of this letter was also handed over to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and Range Superintendent. Thereafter the show cause notice was issued to the appellants for demanding the duty already paid by them and this show cause notice was withdrawn by the Additional Commissioner. Hence the refund claim i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T decisions I find that the letter dated 19-3-98 given by the appellants to the preventive officer, Divisional Assistant Commissioner and Range Superintendent is the sufficient compliance to Rule 233B of C. Ex. Rules, 1944 and the duty debited has to be treated as duty paid under protest. Further Hon ble Supreme Court in para 83 of the decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. UOI, 1997 (89) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) to support the department s arguments that the procedure under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is required to be followed by a person under protest, which has not been done in this case. 3. However, keeping in view the circumstances of this case, where the duty was paid on the directions of the preventi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
