9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,917/- (Rs.3,14,923/- + Rs. 16,01,994/-). The issue whether export duty is payable on the goods supplied to SEZ unit was under challenge before various High Courts as well as the Jurisdictional High Court. The issue was settled in favour of the assessee by the judgment in the case of M/s Essar Steel Limited Vs Union of India [2010 (249) ELT-3 (Guj)] wherein it was held that supplies to SEZ would not attract export duty. The appellants submitted a protest letter dated 27.02.2009 in regard to the duty paid by them on 12.02.2009 to the tune of Rs. 16,01,994/-. With regard to the duty amount of Rs. 3,14,923/- paid by appellant on 22.07.2008 no protest letter was filed by the appellant. On realising that they are not liable to pay export duty, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore payment of duty or either at the time of payment of duty. With this view, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund claim as being hit by limitation. Hence this appeal. 4. On behalf of appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. Mohan Kodura submitted that the appellant is not contesting the refund claim of Rs. 3,14,923/- and is confining the contest only with regard to the refund claim of Rs. 16,01,994/- paid by them on 12.02.2009. That on 27.02.2009 the appellants had issued a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, APSEZ, Visakhapatnam informing that the export duty with interest has been paid by them under protest. In the same letter they had requested to release the bank guarantee in regard to the said payment. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not complied with the procedure to record the protest. In the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority has discussed in para 10 (ii) that the appellants have not followed the procedure prescribed for payment of duty under protest as provided in para 3.2 of Part-III of Chapter-13 of CBEC s Central Excise Manual. On perusal of the said para 3.2 it is seen that, there is no procedure stated therein for marking protest by the assessee in the said para. The Ld. AR also has not been able to explain or point out as to what is the exact procedure laid in law that has to be followed for marking the protest of assessee. It is the case of the department that there is no document to show that duty was paid under protest. Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with SEZ and Customs departments; but nothing of that sort is available on the said Challans or on any other document furnished. Thus it has to be construed that no protest has been made either before or at the time of payment of duty nor also at the time of filing the refund application on 07.12.2010 excepting the letter dated 27.02.2009 (received on 03.03.2009) addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, APSEZ, Visakhapatnam while requesting for release of the bank guarantee. In any case, this letter may not be treated as proper document for recording payment of duty under protest. In the present case, since the appellants have intimated their protest within reasonable time, that is within 2 weeks of payment of duty, I am of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
