9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issue involved in the present case is that refund claim filed by the appellant is time barred on the ground that the appellant had not followed the procedure of payment of duty provided under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As regard the claim that the payment of duty was made by reversal of CENVAT credit under protest vide letter dated 02.08.2000 vide RG 23A Part-II for August, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue 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 manipulated in as much as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II - 2015 (317) ELT 379 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned A.R. and perused the records, I find that both the lower authorities denied the refund claim only on the time bar. It was force fully contented tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 record, whether any question that whether the payment made under protest or otherwise was put before Shri K.S. Jeughale. As regard the decision of this Tribunal relied upon by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated under protest, therefore the reversal for the period August 1999 to 01.08.2000 is clearly time barred as no protest was lodged by the appellant. The reversal made from 02.08.2002 to February, 2002 is under protest and cannot be rejected on time bar, therefore the refund to the extent of reversal for the period 02.08.2000 to 2002, is allowed. Since the correct quantification is required r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
