2007 (1) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....944 between 1200 hours of the Budget day i.e. 29-2-2000 till midnight i.e. 2200 hours on 29-2-2000 i.e. on budget day. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were granted permission by the Commissioner of Central Excise for removal of the goods on pre-budget/budget day subject to the condition that they would pay enhanced rate of duty on clearance after 1200 hours on 29-2-2000. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,94,352/- on 3-10-2000 under Rule 224(2) and 224(2A) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for duty debited under protest over and above duty at concessional rate of 8% ad valorem under Notification No.5/99-C.E. dated 28-2-1999 on clearance made by them after 1200 hours on the budg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emsp;The learned Departmental Representative on behalf of the respondent submits that the issue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Vikrant Tyres v. CCE, Banagalore [2003 (158) E.L.T. 251 (Tri. - LB)]. He submits that in this case, the appellants furnished the undertaking for clearance of goods on pre-budget day and budget day and therefore, it is squarely covered under Rule 224. He further, submits that on the basis of undertaking the appellant was allowed to clear the goods as per the condition as prescribed under the said Rules. He also relied upon the Manglam Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [1999 (105) E.L.T. 463]. 5. In a rejoinder the learned advocate submits that in this case, there is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st, which in our view, did not carry any legal sanctity. After having availed the special concession /benefit of removing the goods on the eve of the budget, which they otherwise legally could not do because of the restriction imposed on the removal by Rule 224(2), the appellants could not raise protest while making payment of differential duty. The doctrine of estoppel stands in their way, to raise such a protest. They are legally debarred from disputing their liability, under the said. doctrine, for payment of enhanced duty on the ground that the notification enhancing the duty was issued on the date subsequent to their removal of the goods i.e. on 1-3-2000. The removal of the goods by them has to be related to that date (1-3-2000) on whi....