9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The appellants herein are manufacturers of goods falling under Item 68. They filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,52,727.16 on 8-5-1984 for central excise duty paid during the period 1-3-1980 to 30-6-1983 on the product 'phosphoric acid I.P.". The ground of claim was that their competitor M/s. Excel Industries Ltd., Bombay had been hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first two classification lists they mentioned that 'Phosphoric Acid I.P.' was exempted as intermediate and duty was being paid under protest. It is significant to note that there was no provisional approval of these two lists. It was only in the classification list 1/82 that the appellants mentioned that duty was being paid under protest as an appeal for exemption of the product was pending before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Assistant Collector rejecting their claim for benefit of exemption notification. We see no force in the arguments of the learned Representative of the appellants that the appeal filed by another party was sufficient for the appellants to declare that an appeal for exemption was pending. In addition to this as pointed out by the learned D.R. Rule 233-B which provides for the method o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 744, Icem Engineering Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise relates to a case where the claim had been rejected on the ground that the appellants had failed to observe the proper procedure laid down under Rule 223-B even though the appellants had marked 'paid under protest' on the duty-paying documents and the protest was a valid one. Similar thereto is the case of Andh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
