9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the period from 28-7-69 to 3-2-72. The Department assessed the goods under item 18 as synthetic yarn. The appellants maintained that the goods correctly fell under item 15A(2) as an article of plastic and on that basis they applied for refund of the duty of ₹ 1,24,822/- on 27-2-72. The appellants claim that they had paid this duty under item 18 under protest. The lower authorities upheld the classification under item 18 and rejected the refund claim of the appellants. The appellants then filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, has been taken up as the subject appeal. 2. During the hearing before us, the appellants rested their case on the Division Bench judgment dated 28-4-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case. On merits, he argued that the Gujarat High Court had gone wrong in their finding because the definition in item 18 of the Tariff was an inclusive one and was not confined to yarn made out of man-made fibres. Without prejudice to his main argument on classification, he stated that though the appellants had claimed to have paid the duties under protest, there was no record of such protest and both the lower authorities were silent on the question of protest. He maintained that their claim was partly time-barred under rule 11 read with rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as then in force, under which the time-limit for filing refund claims was one year. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. We observe that Special Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of a contrary judgment of any other High Court. What the Department wants us to do is to analyse the Gujarat High Court judgment aforesaid and to hold that the High Court went wrong in their finding. We decline to do so. In keeping with our consistent approach, we respectfully follow the Gujarat High Court judgment aforesaid and hold that during the material period metallised yarn fell under item 15-A(2) and not under item 18-C.E.T. 5. So far as the Department s alternative plea of time bar is concerned, we hold that it has been well taken. A part of the appellants claim falls beyond the time-limit of one year then in force under rule 11 read with rule 173-J and would, thus, be hit by the time bar unless the appellants can es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
