1997 (7) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r PLA account vide entry No. 56 dated 26-3-1991. 2. I have heard Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Counsel and Shri Nayyar, learned DR. 3. For a better understanding of the dispute in this case, it would be necessary to set out a few facts for easy reference. The appellants who are manufacturers of Lal Dant Manjan and Hair Oil obtained inputs viz. plastic caps and plastic containers from their suppliers who cleared them to the appellants after payment of duty and the appellants used these containers and caps in the manufacture of their final products which are ultimately cleared on payment of duty. Since the Department was of the view that the inputs supplier M/s. Amrita Moulding was eligible to the benefit of exemption from duty o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,38,655/- debited by them on 26-3-1991 in pursuance to the Superintendent's communication dated 14-3-1991. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector for the reason that the assessees had not adopted proper procedure under Rule 233B providing for procedure to be followed in cases where duty is paid under protest and for the reason that since Rule 233B procedure was not followed, applicable provision was Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944 providing for a period of six months limitation for filing of refund claims and since the refund claim had been filed on 29-4-1992 for refund of duty paid on 26-3-1991, the assessees' refund claim was hit by the limitation period provided under Section 11B and the lower appellate au....