9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ISE, MUMBAI-II [2014 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Held that: - the assessee in such case has not complied the provision of Rule 233B, whereas in the present case the appellant has admittedly submitted a letter dated 02.08.2000 showing the reversal of MODVAT credit under protest. Therefore the ratio of the judgment of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. it is not applicable in the present case. The total refund claim of ₹ 39,14,616/- pertaining to the period August, 1999 to February, 2002. The letter of protest first time was submitted by the appellant on 02.08.2000 therefore reversal made on or after 02.08.2000 till February, 2002 is covered made under protest. Whereas the reversal for the period August, 99 to 01.08.2002 cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l point pen. It is clear that mention under protest made later on. For the above reason the refund was rejected and the same was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore the appellant is before me. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. 3. Shri Ashutosh Nath, learned Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that as per the facts available by both the lower authorities, the duty reversed by the appellant cannot be said to have been done under protest for the reason that letter dated 02.08.2000 is not sufficient compliance under Rules 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the RG 23A Part-II register is man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endent but only for the reason that the letter was not submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, reversal under protest as per the letter cannot be brushed aside. Even if the RG 23A Part-II is not considered as document showing reversal of under protest, the letter dated 02.08.2000 was made for under protest. As regard the submission of learned A.R. and also recorded in the order that Shri K.S. Jeughale has not mentioned under protest while accepting the reversal of MODVAT credit in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, I find that once the letter dated 02.08.2000 for reversal under protest was submitted, there is no need to again state the same in his statement. Moreover it is not coming out from the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
