9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the assessee's contention that the amount pre-deposited by them in terms of Section 35F of the C.E. Act, 1944 was only pre-deposit and not payment of duty and the question of depositing it under protest does not arise and the department is required to refund the amount. In this regard he relied upon the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the duty debited in the PLA for fulfilling the requirements under Section 35F cannot be equated to payments in terms of orders, decrees, judgments of Courts and therefore, duty deposited in terms of Section 35F is also covered by the limitations provided under Section 11B and unless the amounts have been paid under protest under the provisions of Rule 233B of the C.E. Rules, the amount cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay High Court judgment (supra) and also the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] Therefore, I am not inclined to grant adjournment of the case and I proceed to decide the case. I note that Revenue had filed a Stay petition in this case seeking stay of operation of the impugned order and the Tribunal by Stay Order No. 66/2001, dated 2- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
