1998 (1) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Santosh Kumar, Director, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II against the Order dated 7-7-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The brief facts are that the Respondents manufactures textile Auxiliaries, Chemicals, Dyes, Pigments. They filed a classif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th the remark "In our opinion these products fall under Tariff Item 68. However, we are paying duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) under protest". This classification list was approved by the Asstt. Collector on 28-12-1983 approving classification of goods under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. On 9-3-1994 the Respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,94,163/- claiming that differential duty paid ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd that this fact was endorsed on the classification list. 2. Shri D. Gurnani, ld. DR contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in accepting the Respondents submission that they were paying duty under protest because they have not followed the procedure set out under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules for payment of duty under protest. Whatever protest they have made by endors....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent submitted on 18-8-1982 came to be approved finally by the Asstt. Collector only on 28-12-1983. We observe that in such a situation payment of duty during the period pending the final approval of the classification list has been held to be payment of duty under protest by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Samrat International v. Collector 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) = 1991 (33) E....