9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial time, had two factories in Tamilnadu, one located at Coimbatore and the other located at Virudhunagar, in the jurisdiction of two different Collector of Central Excise. The grievances of the appellants was against the classification of paper tubes in respect of their Virudhunagar factory and, accordingly, while paying duty in accordance with the directions of the authorities, the appellants did so by lodging a protest. Similar goods were being manufactured by the Coimbatore factory in respect of which the appellants did not lodge a similar protest. Perhaps, this was under the impression that since both the factories were owned by the same company, a separate protest was not necessary. There is no dispute that the claim for refund was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T.522 (Tribunal) = 1984 ECR 1559 (Cegat). 5. Shri Sundar Rajan, on his part, submitted that the question of payment of duty under protest did not at all arise in this case since, as could be seen from para 3 of the impugned order, the appellants had conceded before the Collector (Appeals) that there was an appealable order in respect of the Coimbatore unit passed by the Collector (Appeals) on the classification of paper cones and that the appellants had not gone in appeal against the said order. In reply to this submission, Shri Chidambaram stated that this was an error of fact. There was no appealable order in respect of Coimbatore unit. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides. It is an admitted position that the two factorie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be similar to an order passed in appeal or revision under the Act. Issue of Tariff Advice is purely an administrative act and cannot be equated to an order or decision under the Act. Section 11B(3) is clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Stewards & Lloyds 1985 (22) E.L.T. 522 (Tribunal) (supra) is also misplaced. In that case, the respondents were paying duty on certain steel manufacturers from 1-3-75 under protest though without formally appealing against classification lists, with which they were aggrieved. The Department had not produced any evidence that these protests were ignored or that the respondents were inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
