TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (6) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from the tree trunks while in the semi-solid state by the Forest Department of the State Government which then sells the same to the appellant company by weight in its raw form. The process of manufacturing turpentine oil in liquid form is either by the conventional method without using any electric energy or the modern method by use of electric energy. The appellant Unit at Rajouri has been using the purely conventional method for the manufacture of turpentine oil out of rosin by heating the solid rosin in iron and steel drums with fire-wood. The heat decomposes the rosin into the gaseous formation leaving behind the by-product known as resin. The heating circle is a closed circuit and all the gases thus formed are channelised and made to pass through various tin tubes which end in empty drums. River/tube well water is applied over the tubes which results in condensation of the gases in to liquid turpentine oil. The Unit has a diesel engine which is sometimes used to pump water to the overhead tank from which the water is poured on the tubes for condensation. This manual method is known as the conventional method. The appellant factory commenced its production in 1977. The refun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be permitted to deposit central excise duty from January, 1980 under protest. For the subsequent period the Department has granted refund. The learned Counsel seeks to rely upon the documents such as show cause notice dated 27-3-1978 alleging contravention of Rule 173, letter dated 28-9-1978 from Superintendent of Central Excise, Jammu calling upon the appellants to deposit the personal penalty of Rs. 260/- imposed vide Assistant Collector's order dated 19-9-1978, show cause notice of 20-4-1978 and order dated 27-4-1978 of Superintendent Technical to emphasise his contention that the appellants had all along been protesting against the levy of duty even though the word `protest' had not been formally mentioned any where in the correspondence or other documents. We are unable to accept this contention. The issue of show cause notice and consequent orders in no way establishes that the appellants were coerced and forced to pay the duty. To our minds there does not appear to be any indication that the appellants protested or did not accept the levy of duty prior to 1-1-1980. We find that the lower appellate authority has relied upon Rule 173B(3) regarding payment of duty under prot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter does not refer specifically to the period in question and is virtually a non-speaking order. 10. At the same time once the appellants had addressed the Department vide their letter dated 20-9-1979 and claimed the benefit of exemption, the proper officer was required to take into account the request and pass an order either accepting or rejecting the prayer with reference to this communication. 11. It has already been held by the Tribunal in a number of cases that the date of staking the claim was relevant for the purpose of time bar. 12. As in this case the appellants had staked their claim for exemption notification on 20-9-1979 and the Asstt. Collector had by its letter dated 28-5-1980 exempted the unit from paying the excise duty, these facts were required to be taken into account. The Asstt. Collector had therefore erred in referring only to their letter dated 15-3-1980 and in not referring to their letter dated 20-9-1979 and the claim staked therein. 13. The Asstt. Collector had also erred in not explicitly mentioning the period from which and upto which the exemption was being granted. In fact, the Asstt. Collector has passed a very sketchy and non-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the Vice President, no prejudice is caused to the respondent; that if agreeing with the Vice President the case is remanded to the lower authorities, the appellant will be able to present their case properly before the lower authorities and get a fair trial; that the appellant had filed a letter claiming exemption from duty on 20-9-1979 but in the order passed by the Asstt. Collector allowing the appellant exemption referred to only the letter dated 15-3-1980; that the letter dated 20-9-1979 was a letter claiming exemption from payment of duty and should have been treated as such; that no order has been passed by the Asstt. Collector allowing the appellant exemption on the basis of the letter dated 20-9-1979 and therefore grave injustice has been done to the appellant; that in the circumstances, the Hon'ble Vice President had held that this was a fit case for remand. The ld. Counsel for the appellant, therefore, argued that it was a fit case for remand. 20. Shri V.C. Bhartiya, the Ld. JDR appearing for the respondent submitted that it is a case where demands were preferred beyond the stipulated period and therefore the appeals have rightly been rejected by the Member (J....