2009 (11) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ised by the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, incharge of appellant unit, that receiving the raw naphtha under Chapter X Procedure was not legal and proper and accordingly the appellants were directed to deposit the duty forgone. The appellants paid the disputed amount under protest. This dispute came before Tribunal and Tribunal by its order dated 22-1-1999 ordered for de novo decision of the dispute. In the de novo proceedings, it was held that the appellants were eligible to get raw naphtha duty free and accordingly the refunds have been paid to the appellants. 4. Meanwhile the appellants themselves without waiting for the decision of CESTAT started procuring duty paid naphtha during the period 8-2-1998 to 11-5-1998. Subsequent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Department, they have chosen to buy duty paid raw naphtha from Indian Oil Corporation. They protested payment of duty with IOC and they have also protested before the concerned Central Excise Authorities. Since on the same issue, they have got a favourable decision for earlier period and the said order of the Tribunal was communicated to them on 12-3-1999, filing of refund claim on 31-8-1999 was well within time. At any rate, they have paid the duty to IOC under protest and therefore, claim was not time barred. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) particularly paras 85, 86, 99.3. 7. Learned SDR submits that the dispute relati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in CEGAT order mentioned in para 1". In addition, it has also been submitted "We ourselves without waiting for judgment of CEGAT started procuring duty paid naphtha from 8th February to 11th May, 1998" From this, it is clear that the appellants themselves have chosen to procure naphtha from IOC on payment of duty. Since the procurement was under payment of duty, obviously Chapter X Procedure has not been followed as rightly observed by the original authority. There was no occasion to see whether the goods have been used for the purpose claimed to have been used. If the manufacturer paid duty under protest, naturally he gets protection from time bar for claiming refund. We are not in a position to agree that buyers of the excisable goods fr....