TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. ORDER In these two Appeals common facts and legal issues are involved and accordingly these appeals are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellants purchased conveyer belts from M/s. Dunlop India, the manufacturer. They claimed refund dated 17-3-1997 for a sum of Rs. 51,31,331/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Thirty One Thousand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals) have upheld the orders of the original authority. 4. Learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that in identical situation, the Appellants purchased conveyor belts from M/s. Fenner (India) and the matter went before Chennai Bench of the Tribunal which decided that as purchaser they had filed the claim beyond the time limit and decided against them. The said Order of the Tribunal was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia have paid duty on the conveyer belts under protest and subsequently it has been settled that duty at higher rate is not payable on the conveyer belts during the relevant period. Both the original Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have clearly held that the Appellants have not produced any evidence that M/s. Dunlop India have paid the duty under protest. Learned Advocate at this stag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 8-7-97. 8. On, perusal of the above communication addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, we find that the same does not indicate that duty payment by M/s. Dunlop has been made under protest. No doubt that the payment under protest by the manufacturer definitely protects the manufacturer against their claim becoming time barred. Whether protest made by a manufacturer can give the same prot....