TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovember 30, 1975 must, therefore, be construed to mean that protest was lodged in the said letter both against obtaining the licence as well as against liability to payment of excise duty. In these circumstances we are unable to agree with the Tribunal that payment of duty was not made under protest. On that view of the matter the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot he upheld and has to be set aside. Appeal allowed. - 6102 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 29-7-1997 - S.C. Agrawal and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ. [Order].- This appeal raises the question whether the claim for refund of excise duty made by the appellant was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antity and value as well as the quantity and value of the goods removed outside the factory from March 1, 1975 up to date and the quantity and value on balance on November 29, 1976. 3. In reply dated November 30, 1976, to the said letter the Divisional Engineer at the Central Workshop of the Electricity Board stated : "In this connection, it is to intimate that the Central Workshop at Bhilai set up by the M.P. Electricity Board is undertaking the fabrication of transmission line towers and sub-station structures and Line Hardware materials in connection with the power supply in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In view of this, it is felt that the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding obtaining licence and payment of excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down that no form is prescribed for payment of duty under protest and if letter of protest shows that the assessee was not accepting the liability without protest then that would be sufficient. Shri Asthana has also urged that the Tribunal was in error in proceeding on the basis that since the ground on which the Electricity Board was disclaiming the liability to pay the duty in the letter dated November 30, 1976 was different from the ground on which the claim for refund was based the said letter of protest could not be regarded as a protest to support the claim for refund. In support of this submission Shri Asthana has invited our attention to the observations contained in the judgment of B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the majority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order to enable the Excise authorities to recover the excise duty on the goods that were being manufactured in the Central Workshop which, according to him, were liable to payment of excise duty @ 1% ad valorem since they were falling under T.I. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act. In reply to the said letter the Divisional Engineer, Central Workshop, in his letter dated November 30, 1975 took the stand that the Central Workshop at Bhilai was undertaking the fabrication of transmission line towers and sub-station structures and Line Hardware materials in connection with the power supply in the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the provisions of the Central Excise Rules regarding obtaining licence and payment of excise duty may not be appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
