9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aled against. According to the appellant, it had challenged order-in-original passed for a different period where identical issue was raised and it was decided in its favour by the Tribunal under order dated 12-9-97. Therefore, it is contended that it is entitled to refund in respect of duty paid for different periods which were affirmed by the adjudicating authority under separate orders-in-original. 2. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a learned Single Member of the Tribunal in Samurai Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 85 (T). He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otest" shall be made on all copies of the gate pass, the Application of Removal and Form RT 12 or Form 13, as the case may be. (5) In cases where the remedy of an appeal or revision is not available to the assessee against an order or decision which necessitated him to deposit the duty under protest, he may, within three months of the date of delivery of the letter of protest, give a detailed representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. (6) In cases where the remedy of an appeal or revision is available to the assessee against an order or revision which necessitated him to deposit the duty under protest, he may file an appeal or revision within the period specified for filing such appeal or revision, as the case may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er protest and can file an appeal or revision. Sub-rule (7) provides that the assessee will have no right to deposit duty under protest when order under sub-rule (5) or (6) is served on him. The proviso only allows the assessee to deposit the duty under protest during the period available to him for filing an appeal or revision and during the pendency of such appeal or revision. The above would show that none of the provisions in Rule 233B would enable the assessee to contend that the duty paid pursuant to an order of adjudication was one paid under protest even when he does not file an appeal from the order of adjudication. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on Para 83 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
