2006 (5) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hi and delivered it to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. A seal of the Tuglakabad office, purportedly of Deputy Commissioner (Refund), ICD, TKD dated 4-1-2001 along with file No. is to be seen on the copy of the letter filed in the present appeal. The said letter points out that meat export are sold under highly competitive conditions in the International market and levy of any duty/cess on export is putting a hindrance for boosting of their exports. 2. Cess on meat export was reduced to 0% under Notification dated 17th January 2001. Even after the issuance of that notification, the appellant continued to pay cess in regard to their exports. Later, on 17th May 2002, both the appellants filed refund applications claiming refund of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n'ble Supreme Court in the Miles India Ltd. - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 in this regard. He also referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478, and in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 etc. 5. In the present appeals, the submission of the appellant is that the revenue cannot dispute the fact of filing the protest letter inasmuch as even the show cause notice dated 7-8-02 referred to the protest. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that since a protest letter has no fixed format (nor any particular ground under the statute) a letter of protest is required to be treated as payment of duty under protest. The coun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tutes and no case shall be maintained by them outside those time limits. He has taken us through the judgements relied on in the order of the Commissioner. In addition he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collr. of Cus. v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260. 7. We have perused the record and considered the submissions made by both sides. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the revenue authorities are correct and is required to be confirmed in the facts of the present case. The learned JCDR is right in his contention that the provision relating to duty payments under protest has to be understood in the context of the Section 27 which relates to refund of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Manufacturing Co. -1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.) in reaching the conclusion that statutory time limit would apply to cases of illegal levy also. We may reproduce below the observations made by the Supreme Court: "(1) Where a refund application was filed by the manufacturer/purchaser beyond the period prescribed by the Central Excise Act/Customs Act in that behalf, such petition must be held to be untenable in law. Even if any appeal, suit or writ petition, direction has been given that the refund application shall be considered with reference to the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act/Customs Act - or that the period of limitation shall be taken as three years - such a direction of the Appellant Court/Civil Court/High....