9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent-assessee is not time barred as under the facts and circumstances, the amount in question was paid under protest. 3. The brief facts as per the show cause notice are that the appellant applied for refund of Rs. 12,50,000/- on 14.02.2008. This amount was debited by the respondent against, case booked by the Department on 29-30 May, 2003, pursuant to inspection, wherein there was shortage in the stock of certain raw materials like Supari, Lamination, Containers and Zippers and some excess goods were found of Gutka and Pan-masala, which were over and above the recorded balance in RG-1 register. On the estimation of duty involved, the respondents debited Rs. 12,50,000/- vide PLA debit Entry No.126 on 16/06/2003, pursuant to issue of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. wherein it have been held that- "where a person proposes to contest his liability by way of appeal, revision or in the higher courts, he would naturally pay the duty, whenever he does, under protest. It is difficult to imagine that a manufacturer would pay the duty without protest even when he contests the levy of duty, its rate, classification or any other aspect". Accordingly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the duty was paid under protest, ipso facto. It was also held that the supplementary instructions issued by CBEC have got no legal force as they are neither prescribed in the Act or in the Rules. 4. Being aggrieved, revenue is before this Tribunal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n time even under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the matter was still sub-judice, when the appellant had filed further appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) before this Tribunal. Further, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct in holding that the payment of the amount on 16/06/2003 was by way of revenue deposit, in absence of there being any adjudicated or admitted dues. Further, under the facts and circumstances, I hold that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is right in holding that the amount was paid under protest, as the respondents have been continuously agitating the demand before the higher forums. In this view of the matter, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
