TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Member (T)]. - The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. They filed revised claim for Handloom cess on 16-9-1986 and on 15-10-1986 claiming that as per S.O. 115(E), dated 1-3-1975 no Handloom Cess is required to be paid when the basic duty is nil or exempted. The refund claim pertains to the period from 1-8-1984 to 31-12-1985. This refund cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Superintendent of the Range. He submits that Superintendent of the Range was not the proper officer for the purpose of Rule 233B. He submits that Rule 233B sets out the procedure to be followed for payment of duty under protest. That the requirement of this Rule was not complied with by the appellants inasmuch as they did not endorse the GP 1s and RT 12 returns indicating that the duty was being p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssistant Collector. We note that the Tribunal in its judgment in the case of Jay Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 698 (Tribunal) = 1997 (21) RLT 245 has held as under :- "10. The protest letter in this case was delivered to the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Department has no case that though the Superintendent had no authority to deal w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld have been filed as contemplated under sub-rule (5) of Rule 233B. The Tribunal has considered this question in Guest Keen Williams Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [1997 (89) E.L.T. 209 (Tri.)]. The Tribunal held that a detailed representation would be naturally required where the earlier protest was a mere protest without giving reasons, but the letter of protest contained det....