TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Asstt. Collector and discussed with him the permissible deductions they could claim including 18% abatement from retail price. Since the Asstt. Collector wanted time to examine the issue, the appellants as per his advice, declared the retail price in part V of the Price List and started paying duty under protest without claiming any deductions towards abatement or other post manufacturing expenses from retail price. A detailed representation was also given on 13-3-1987 to the Asstt. Collector indicating inter alia that they would be paying duty under protest pending finalisation of their price list. 3. In the price list effective from 1-3-1987, they made an endorsement stating, please refer to our letter No. DP/ADM/AI349 dated 13-3-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tribunal) and on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Roche Products v. U.O.I. 1991 (51) E.L.T. 238 (Bom.). His further case is that failure to endorse duty paid under protest on RT-12 returns is not an infirmity which bars the claim of refund. In support of this contention he relied on the order of this Tribunal reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 553. He further submitted that the letter dated 17-2-1989 was pending before the Asstt. Collector in view of the order of this Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Prestige Engineering India (P) Ltd. 1989 (41) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal), it is obligatory on the part of the Asstt. Collector to dispose of the protest letter by an appellable order. His next submission is that the appellants made an endorsement on the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r could not take a decision on the claim of deductions, the appellants wrote the letter dated 13-3-1987 which reads as follows : We called on yourself on 10th March, 1987 and discussed about the permissible deductions as permitted by the Supreme Court in the Bombay Tyre International judgment and Madras Rubber Factory Judgment. When we indicated that we shall declare a price after deducting the permissible deductions, you were of the view that in the beginning we should include all these elements and pay the Excise Duty and claim refund later on. Accordingly, we are filing a price list of all the Computers and Peripherals manufactured by us which are retail prices..... Please note we are not claiming deduction towards expenses incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of limitation does not arise. 8. Secondly, from a reading of the letter dated 13-3-1987, it is clear that the appellants were paying duty under protest. The price lists also referred to the letter dated 13th March, 1987. Therefore, the question of limitation does not arise. However, the argument of the Department is that there is non-compliance with Rule 233B. But the appellants have categorically expressed their intention that they would be paying duty under protest by their letter dated 13-3-1987 and also by reference to the letter dated 13th March, 1987 in the price lists. The striking down of the above endorsement in the price lists by the Department is of no consequence in view of the letter dated 13th March, 1987. In our view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
