9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Shri A.K. Jain, S.D.R. for the Respondents. [Order per : M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (T)]. - The facts, in so far as material, in this proceeding transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an Appeal, in terms of Section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (the Act for short), are - (a) The Appellant manufactures superfine cement and referred a claim on or about 26-3-1980 for refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; in genuine cases [reliance on 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 396) (SC) - Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International]; (iii) The question about the legality of the levy of duty on packing was raised by the Appellant earlier but not accepted by the excise authorities, notwithstanding that the Madras Collectorate had, by the issue of a Trade Notice No. 232/79, dated 29-10-1979, cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to us on the submissions made and in the facts of the case that - (a) Rule 11 of the Rules was enacted on or about 6-8-1977 and provided, inter alia, for a period of six months from the date of payment of duty for an application claiming refund of any duty paid, provided that such bar of limitation does not apply if the payment was initially made under protest; (b) It is Rule 11 that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r protest, a claim for refund would appear to have been barred by limitation in terms of the said Rule; (d) The letter dated 11-6-1974, relied upon to establish a protest, does not, in reality, spell out any protest whatsoever. After answering certain queries it merely asserts that packing charges are not included in the price and proceeds further to say&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
