9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby a refund claim filed by the assessee beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty was held to be not barred by limitation. 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. 3. It appears from the record that the demand of duty amounting to total amount of ₹ 82,890/- had been confirmed against the assessee by the jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and submits that the payment of duty by the party on 29-1-98 was not under protest in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, therefore, the refund claim was hit by the limitation provisions of Section 11B. 5. Ld. Advocate, Shri Bipin Garg, on the other hand, submits that as the duty was paid during the pendency of the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds squarely covered by the cited case law. Admittedly, the duty was paid during the pendency of the assessee s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Such a payment will be deemed to have been made under protest for purposes of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. When the payment is under protest, the time bar provisions will not be applicable. Therefore, the refund claim filed after the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
