9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 182/2005 Central Excise dated 28-9-2005, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore rejecting the refund claim on time bar under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had claimed that they paid duty under protest and later filed the refund claim afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department should be considered as payment made under protest. In such circumstances, the time bar will not apply in the matter. He relied on the following rulings to support the plea that the payment made by the assessee is to be treated as payment under protest. (i) Asha Handicrafts v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV [2004 (177) E.L.T. 303 (Tri.-Mum.)] (ii) CCE, Aurangabad v. Klas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ercion and threat as alleged. The payment made by the assessee cannot be considered as payment made under protest. He submitted that in the cited judgments, the payments were made by the assessee under protest and they were claiming the benefit as the demands were made by the Department prematurely. He relies on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Asst. Collector of Customs v. Anam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim on the ground that the period of limitation should not be applied in their case as they had paid the duty under protest. No protest was noted in any document or in any letter. The assessee paid the legitimate due to the Government without protest and it was not under coercion or under threat. In the cases of cited judgments, the assessee had paid the duty under protest as the demand has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
