2004 (4) TMI 252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the refund claim of Rs. 5,662.50 was allowed. The respondents had made excess payment of duty erroneously and sought its refund which was denied by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30-12-96. On appeal against the rejection, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 28-5-99 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of rejection. Following the directions contained in the order of the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal stating that, when the matter is under litigation the payment made is deemed to be a protest payment even though there is no express mention of the payment having been made under protest. 4. In this connection the observations of the honourable Supreme Court of India in Paragraph 83 of their judgement in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 24 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X