1986 (10) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Respondent. [Order]. - The question for decision in this appeal filed by the appellants M/s. I.D.P.L. who are a Government of India undertaking is eligibility of the appellants to refund in respect of their product "Vitamin Premix" for the period from 1978 to 30-10-1981. 2. We have heard Shri N.K. Dev, Consultant for the appellants and Shri S.R. Kunte, JDR for the Responden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-1981 was time-barred, under section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Thus, according to him refund for the period 10-6-1981 to 30-10-1981 was within time. Surprisingly, however, in the last para of his order, he rejected the entire claim for refund. 4. Before us Shri N.K. Dev, learned Consultant for the appellants prays that the appellants are pressing the claim for refund....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty under protest by making suitable endorsement on the gate passes for the period aforesaid. We also find that the appellants had addressed letter, dated 9-3-1981 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad praying that they may be permitted to pay duty in respect of the product under Tariff Item 68 and not under 14-E. To the same effect is another letter, dated 12-9-1981 in which the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iew of the reasonings adopted by him. As for the appellant's claim for refund for the period 9-3-1981 to 9-6-1981 he had no particular comments to make but he submitted that the claim for refund relating to the period 1-6-1981 to 9-6-1981 after Rule 233-B had come into force deserves rejection as appellants for this period had not followed the procedure prescribed for protest under the Rules. 5....