TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod 17-3-85 to 28-2-86. Refund application was filed on 3-3-87. Under the impugned order, the refund application remains rejected on the ground of limitation and merits. 2. Developments leading to the filing of the refund application may be recalled. Till 17-3-85, it was classifiable under T.I. 68 and was exempt from duty when captively consumed. From that date, classification shifted to T.I. 14AAA. The appellant filed a classification list which was approved on 29th March 1985. The classification list had indicated classification under T.I. 14AAA and duty rate of 15%. Even before the classification list was approved, the appellant wrote a letter dated 26-3-85 to the Assistant Collector, Moradabad with the subject duty under protest . It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter. The present appeal challenges that order. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the finding regarding limitation is contrary to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that proviso to Section 11B specifically states that provided that limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest . The argument is that since the Section specifically has excluded the limitation of six months from cases where payment of duty is under protest, Revenue authorities were in error in raising such a ground of limitation of six months, from the time of vacation of protest. Learned Counsel submits that, in the alternative, revenue authorities should have allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim follows payment of duty, rather than being contrary to it. Therefore, the appellant was neither aggrieved with the order of classification nor was there any need to challenge that order for claiming consequential benefit. With regard to the merits of the case, learned SDR has submitted that unless the benefit is contemporaneously availed of in terms of the rules, the same cannot be extended at a later stage. 6. The appellant claim was two folds - either (i) grant of exemption on account of the goods being captively used or (ii) grant of 56A benefit. The first claim flows from 3rd proviso to Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules. The second claim was based on the product being notified under Rule 56A. As already recalled, the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
