2006 (1) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owever, proceedings were initiated against the appellants for classification of the yarn under Tariff Item 18E and 18 III (ii). The said proceedings culminated into an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 8-2-84. Thereafter vide their letter dated 7-3-84, the appellants paid the differential duty under protest. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and subsequently transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 27-1-86, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing transfer petition remanded the matter of classification to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision. The appellants gave an undertaking before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that they would pay differential duty.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... his impugned order 16-5-95 rejected the same as barred by limitation since the payment of duty was not made under protest. The said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of duty of Rs. 22 lakhs, while sanctioning the balance amount of Rs. 6,26,811.10 but crediting the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 4. As is clear from the above narration of facts the amount of Rs. 22 lakhs was deposited by the appellants during the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as a result of undertaking given by them. As such, on the ultimate success of their claim as regards the classification of the yarn, the said duty so deposited by them is liable to be refunded to them wi....