Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1024 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - time bar - rejection on the ground that the appellant had not followed the procedure of payment of duty provided under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the letter dated 02.08.2000 is not the sufficient compliance of procedure under Rule 233B for payment of duty under protest, regarding RG 23A Part-II it was contented that in the register which is a carbon copy duty paid under protest was made by ball point pen. It is clear that mention ‘under protest’ made later on - reliance placed in the case of M/s. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-II [2014 (5) TMI 767 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Held that: - the assessee in such case has not complied the provision of Rule 233B, whereas in the present case the appellant has admittedly submitted a letter dated 02.08.2000 showing the reversal of MODVAT credit under protest. Therefore the ratio of the judgment of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. it is not applicable in the present case. The total refund claim of ₹ 39,14,616/- pertaining to the period August, 1999 to February, 2002. The letter of protest first time was submitted by the appellant on 02.08.2000 therefore reversal made on or after 02.08.2000 till February, 2002 is covered made under protest. Whereas the reversal for the period August, 99 to 01.08.2002 cannot be treated under protest, therefore the reversal for the period August 1999 to 01.08.2000 is clearly time barred as no protest was lodged by the appellant. The reversal made from 02.08.2002 to February, 2002 is under protest and cannot be rejected on time bar, therefore the refund to the extent of reversal for the period 02.08.2000 to 2002, is allowed. Refund partly allowed, matter on remand for correct quantification - appeal disposed off.
|