Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2010 (4) TMI 930

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise Tariff under which the goods were exempted, while the stand of the department was that the goods were dutiable as parts of motors under Tariff Item 30D of the erstwhile tariff. Duty of Rs. 42,92,497/- was paid by the assessees under protest. The benefit of exemption under Notification No. 73/68-CE was also denied to the goods. Denial of the exemption benefit was challenged by the assessees by filing Writ Petition No. 10072/1981 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court which stayed the operation of the denial, vide its order dt. 20-10-81. On 12-7-82, writ petition was dismissed by the court. In the light of court's direction, appellants filed classification list dt 26-7-82 before the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore see....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Refund of Rs. 13,82,995/- was granted and a sum of Rs. 87,877/- was also sanctioned by way of interest for the delay in sanctioning the refund. As regards the claim for the period 1-11-83 to 28-2-86, the adjudicating authority held that appellants had not discharged the onus cast upon them under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the bar of unjust enrichment, which burden was required to be discharged as the assessments during the above mentioned period could not be considered to be provisional in the absence of a formal order under the provisions of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules for provisional assessment. The lower appellate authority upheld the rejection on the same ground; hence this appeal. 2. We ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CEx - Payment of duty under protest - execution of B13 bond - regarding. Regarding the payment of Central Excise duty on stator & rotors, you have got stay order from the court with regard to the classification. Even though you had obtained stay, you are now paying duty on stators and rotors as specified in T1 30D under protest. Once you have started paying duty on stator & rotors even under protest, you should follow the prescribed procedure for payment of duty which requires execution of B13 bond. Hence you are directed to execute B13 bond immediately without any further delay. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IC Coimbatore-I Division" 3. On 29-5-84, the assessees responded stating ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... required to execute B-13 bond in view of the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court. 5. The factual position as set out above makes it clear that & there was a provisional classification and hence this case satisfie the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Forgings v. Union of India [2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that there should either be provisional classification or an order made under Rule 9B empowering clearances on the basis of such provisional classification. The apex court decision cited supra has been followed by the Tribunal in a recent decision in M/s. SRF Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy - Final Order No. 1999/09 dated 29-12-2009 and decisions of the Apex Court in Samrat ....