9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice any decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court setting aside the said decision of the Tribunal. Similarly, in case of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Shree Ram Food Industries vs. Union of India [2002 (9) TMI 646 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the Revenue has contended that the said decision is not applicable in as much as in the present case the respondents have voluntarily paid the duty. Apart from finding that the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are fully applicable to the facts of the case, it is found that his observations and findings that the debit entry was countersigned by Superintendent (Preventive) and the show cause notice itself mentions that the debit was made on pursuance of the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent became entitled to the refund of ₹ 14,39,577/-, made by them by debit entries in RG-23A Pt. II, in 1996. Accordingly, they filed a refund claim on 29/8/2002 i.e. within a period of one month of the rejection of Revenue s appeal by the Tribunal. The said amount for refund was subsequently reduced to ₹ 13,79,912/- on the ground that amount of ₹ 59,665/- already stands recovered by them from their customer. 4. Such refund claim was proposed to be denied by the Revenue on the ground of time bar, the respondent took a categorical stand before the Original Adjudicating Authority that the said debit entry in their RG-23A Pt. I was made at the behest of the Revenue and as such the deposit should be considered as having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made by the Superintendent was not a voluntary payment but was to be treated as payment under protest and hence the limitation period under Section 11B was not applicable. 8. In view of the above, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the debit made by the appellant in the year 1996 amounts to payment of duty under protest. From a perusal of the relevant entry in the RG 23A Pt. II, it is seen that the debit entry has been counter-signed by the Superintendent (Preventive), Division, Sagar. The counter signature of the Superintendent (P) and not of the Range Superintendent, who was the assessing officer, shows two things: firstly, the debit was made at the behest of the departmental officers; and secondly, some am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not applicable to the facts of the case. The Revenue has nowhere given any details as to how the said decisions, which involve the same legal issue, are not applicable to the facts of the case. As regards the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE, Aurangabad vs. BCL Forgings Ltd. (supra), which stands relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals), it has been contended that the Department has not accepted the said decision and has filed an appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai. However, the learned DR appearing for the Revenue has not been able to brought to our notice any decision of the Hon ble Mumbai High Court setting aside the said decision of the Tribunal. Sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
