2000 (6) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants had sent certain materials for job work at the job work premises. When the material was worked upon, waste product namely methanol emerged. The Revenue authorities wrote to the appellants that since there is no evidence to show that the job worker had cleared the said waste material on payment of duty, therefore appellant as a principal manufacturer should pay the duty thereon. As a sequel to that letter of the Range Superintendent dated 18-10-94, the appellants debited their RG. 23A-Part-II Account with the said sum as per Superintendent's letter on 28-10-94. Few days later, on 2-11-94, they wrote a letter informing the department that said payment was made 'under protest' as they had not been able to find out whether the job w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal duty was paid under protest. 5. Heard Ld. DR who submits that the impugned order clearly states that there is violation of sub-rule (8) of Rule 233B. Further, the letter cannot also be treated as a refund claim in view of note appended below to sub-rule (8) ibid. Therefore in either case appellants have no justification in holding that the letter which was submitted to the department after payment of duty and not before the payment of duty can be regarded as a valid letter of protest. He refers to provisions of sub-rules 1, 2 and 3 and contends that a plain reading thereof clearly shows that such letter of protest has to be submitted in acknowledgement obtained from the Proper Officer. This having not been done, a basic conditio....