TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him accordingly. We accept the above position and proceed to hear Shri Mehta in the matter. 2. Shri Mehta stated that the refund claim filed by the appellants had been dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, MOD IV, New Delhi on the ground that their claim was time barred. He had also rejected the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. Shri Mehta contended that the latter ground was never communicated to them in a show cause notice and thereby they had lost the opportunity of making their submission in that regard. Further as the law stood at the material time there was no provision to deny refunds on this ground. Reverting to the first ground, namely, the question of time bar, Shri Mehta stated that they had contest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate do not indicate that they were paying duty under protest. The word protest is not there at all in both the letters written by the appellants to the departmental officers. There is no indication that the payment of duty was under protest. He, therefore, supported the impugned order and pleaded that the appeal may be rejected. 4. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the record. We find that the appellants have written to the department two letters on 14th May, 1977 and 19th May, 1977. In the former letter they had contended that their product, namely aerated waters, did not contain blended flavouring concentrate and they were accordingly filing a revised classification list. In the subsequent letter dated 19th May, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the nature of protest. 5. The same would hold good in the present case also. The appellants had clearly staked their claim that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification 30/72. They had also filed a revised classification list. Apparently the approval of the said classification list took some time and they had to pay duty in accordance with their previous classification list. Payment of duty in accordance with the same has to be considered in the light of the contentions raised by the appellants in their letters. So viewed, the letter will be construable as a letter of protest. We also take note of the fact that at the relevant time Rule 233B had not been introduced and there was no form of letter of protest. We also find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
