1989 (9) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m by the respondents herein, who are manufacturers of padding solution. The respondents had addressed a letter to the Department on 16-11-1971 stating that in their opinion, DMEU, DMPU, and GLYOXAL based padding solutions are not excisable and they will be paying excise duty on the products manufactured, namely DMEU, DMPU under protest. The respondents subsequently filed the refund claim on 19-9-1978 for Rs. 10,15,768.30 for duty paid on four products viz. DMEU (Prym. E), DMPU, BECKAMINE and Prema fresh (all padding solutions) under Item 15A Central Excise Tariff for the period from 1-6-1972 to 20-7-1977 on the ground that up to 28-2-1975 these goods were not excisable under 15A of Central Excise Tariff and thereafter they were dutiable onl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....istence. Further they had failed to express their protest in their classification list filed for the products other than DMEU. 4. Shri D. D. Gwalani, the learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that they had included all the items in their letter of protest and they were protesting against the levy of duty on padding solutions as such. This position in law has come to be accepted by the department. Therefore, there was no reason to modify the order of the Collector (Appeals). He further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement reported in AIR 1989 SC 1496 India Cement v. Collector of Central Excise, wherein in similar circumstances the Supreme Court has held that the letter raising objection again....