9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. 2. The relevant facts of, the case are that the appellant debited an amount in the RG-23A Part-II on 23-10-2002 under protest at the instance of the audit party because freight and insurance charges were not included by them in the assessable value. Thereafter, on 28-12-2002, they re-credited the said amount suo motu in their RG-23 Part-II account. There is a correspondence between th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Winder v. CCE, Allahabad - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 483 (ii) Star Forging Pvt. Ltd., v. CCE, Rajkot - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 316 (Tri. Mumbai) 4. Learned authorized representative (DR) on behalf of the respondent reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that mere endorsement under protest in RG-23A Part-II is not sufficient under Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , bar of limitation is not applicable. The adjudicating authority did not consider the said case law on the ground that in the present case payments are made in RG-23A Part-II. I find that it is only a single payment made under protest and duly recorded in their RG-23A Part-II register. In such situation there is no other methods for the assessee to follow the procedure of the payment under protes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt endorsed in their RG-23A Part-II record, which is sufficient compliance under Rule 233B of the erstwhile rules. Accordingly, rejection of the refund claim on limitation is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide on merit. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
