9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant dated 14-4-86. The initial period of warehousing was up to 26-5-86. The period was extended from time to time at the instance of the importers, who were the appellants herein, and, accordingly, the warehousing period stood extended up to 26-5-87. The goods were cleared from the warehouse without payment of duty under the DEEC Scheme on 23-9-87. At the time of clearance, however, the Customs authorities insisted on payment of interest on duty for the period 27-5-86 to 23-9-87, which was paid 'under protest' by the party while clearing the goods. The protest was clearly endorsed in the TR-6 challan covering the payment of the interest amount of Rs. 1,58,761/-. The importers/appellants filed a refund claim with the proper officer of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al under the DEEC Scheme. Ld. Counsel further submits that grounds of protest were not relevant for purposes of the second proviso to Section 27 (1) and that a simple protest as registered by the party in the TR. 6 challan was enough for such purposes. He draws support to this argument from para 85 of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)]. He submits that the Apex Court's decision is applicable squarely to refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Counsel submits that no interest was payable as insisted by the department as no duty of Customs was payable on the imported material under the DEEC Scheme. In this connection, Counsel relies on the Supreme Court's decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted as valid and sufficient protest for purposes of the refund claim under Section 27 of the Act. According to the authorities below, the claimant ought to have filed a formal letter of protest rather than merely noting "under protest" in the TR. 6 challan. It is in this context that the decision of the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries (supra) becomes relevant. That decision was, of course, rendered in the context of considering certain refund claim filed by the assessee under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. In para 85 of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries, the Apex Court held that the department had no authority to sit in judgement over the grounds of protest and that it was not incumbent on the assessee to mention any such groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
