TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimation for payment of duty under protest seems to be belated and mis-directed, as during the relevant period duty liability on clearance of goods as per provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the month needs to be discharged within five days of succeeding month, In this case appellant had lodged protest of duty payment on 04.04.2016. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them from 01.032011 to 30.03.2011 was paid 'under protest'. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority after following due process of law, holding appellant preferred a 'protest letter' which has also been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the protest letter which has been filed by the appellant is not acceptable and hence refund claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand, submits that the protest which has been lodged by the appellant was not accepted by the department. It is his submission that the protest which has been stated cannot be considered. He reads the impugned order on the issue of how the protest has to be registered. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that for the period in question, there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that it has been rejected by the department in any form. In the absence of any such correspondent from Revenue, the finding of the lower authorities that this matter cannot be considered as an intimation for payment of duty under protest seems to be belated and mis-directed, as during the relevant period duty liability on clearance of goods as per provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
