TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Act, 1944. The demands raised by the department in respect of these amounts which had been short paid in respect of product "Electronic Game Cartridges" was demanded and confirmed on the ground that the final product "Electronic Game Cartridges" fell under Chapter Heading 9504.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants had claimed benefit of Notification No. 96/86, dated 10-2-1986, which had been denied. On the basis of adjudication order, the appellants had agitated the previous adjudication proceedings at CEGAT which on appeal was allowed by remand. Those earlier matters pertaining to the same issue was on re-adjudication allowed in favour of the appellants granting refund. As regards these two....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficient compliance with the requirement of Rule 233B. 4. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Prestige Engg. India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 530, it has been held that once a protest has been lodged it becomes the duty of the Assistant Collector to dispose of the protest by an appealable order. In the absence of disposal of the protest in the aforesaid manner, the protest cannot be deemed to have subsided. 5. In the case of Mahalakshmi Industries v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 352, it has been held that the procedure laid down under Rule 233B is only directory and no mandatory. 6. The learned DR pointed out that the appellants had not filed any appeal against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of 6 months, if the duty has been paid under protest. In several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court payment made by protest letter has been held to be sufficient to save the period of limitation as has been held in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 358. This has since been reiterated and confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex. Engr. Workshop Divn., M.P. Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 445, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order which had held that the letter of protest in respect of taking out licence in response to inspector's letter cannot be deemed to be letter of protest for paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RT 13, as the case may be. (5) In cases where the redemy of an appeal or revision is not available to the assessee against an order or decision which necessitated him to deposit the duty under protest, he may, within three months of the date of delivery of the letter of protest, give a detailed representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. (6) In cases where the remedy of an appeal or revision is available to the assessee against an order or decision which necessitated him to deposit the duty under protest, he may file an appeal or revision within the period specified for filing such appeal or revision, as the case may be. (7) On service of the decision on the representation referred to in sub-rule ....