2012 (10) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....  The appellant filed appeal against order-in-appeal CEX.XI/JMJ/321/916/NSK/APL/03 dated 17-10-2003, whereby Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authorities order rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 10,000/- as time bar. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of different size of ceramic seal faces and ceramic thread guid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the lower authorities. However he did not dispute that the appellant have mentioned 'duty paid 'under protest' on the requisite challan while making payment of Rs. 10,000/-. 5. I have carefully gone through the submissions and perused the records. I note that a demand of Rs. 37,746.48 was issued on 31-8-1987 on the ground that impugned goods were classifiable under Heading 6907.00 of the Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be in accordance with Rule 233B. However both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that in their letter dated 23-6-1988, the appellant nowhere mentioned that the appellant paid the duty under protest. However, I find that both the lower authorities in their findings admitted that the appellant did mention that he (the appellant) is filing appeal against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X