TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim refund - Assessee paid duty under protest for the period for which their claim is made. According to the appellants since the duty was paid under protest, Section 11B was not applicable - Held that:- Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide the correct status of each of the appellants before us vis-a-vis the erstwhile Corporation, appeals are disposed of - Civil Appeal Nos. 5005-5007 of 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot applicable and in that connection they placed reliance on the judgment in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247. The claim was dismissed by the Competent Authority but allowed by the Commissioner (A), whose decision has been overruled by the Tribunal whose decision stood affirmed by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Hence, this Civil Appeal(s) is filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisability, they were not entitled to claim refund on the basis of the decision of this Court rendered in appeal in the case of Hyderabad Industries Limited. This finding of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment. When the Special leave Petitions were filed before this Court, however, in the synopsis the stand taken by the appellant (s) was that the appellants were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the documents placed before us that appellants were Contractors and they were allowed to be registered by the Department as assessees. They have paid duty under protest for the period for which their claim is made. According to the appellants since the duty was paid under protest, Section 11B was not applicable. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
