TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Bombay High Court and hence the present appeal before the Tribunal should wait for the outcome of those appeals. In the absence of evidence to show that the issue involved in the present appeal of M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. is identical to the issue said to be pending before the High Court and the apex court, we are not inclined to accede to the adjournment request. In the cases of both the parties, the Revenue is represented by learned SDR. 2. M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCFL, for short) and M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECFL, for short) had purchased conveyor belts from M/s. International Conveyor Ltd. (ICL, for short), in the process, assuming the duty burden on the goods. The manufacturer/supplier, viz. ICL, had paid d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew taken by the lower appellate authority with regard to limitation. In these appeals, the Revenue s contention is that both the refund claims were heavily time-barred and hence liable to be rejected on that ground. 6. One of the grounds raised by WCFL and ECFL in their memoranda of appeals is that the capital goods in question were captively used and hence there was no question of passing the incidence of duty to any other person. In this connection, they have relied on the Bombay High Court s decision in the case of Solar Pesticides Ltd. The learned SDR submits that the subsequent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Solar Pesticides Ltd. 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) is in favour of the Revenue inasmuch as, in that case, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laims filed by both WCFL and ECFL were heavily time-barred. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in taking the view that the refund claims were not liable to be held to be time-barred as the manufacturer/supplier of the goods had paid duty under protest. It is submitted that the party claiming refund should have paid the duty under protest and that the protest of the manufacturer will be of no avail to the buyer. In this connection also, the learned SDR has relied on Allied Photographics (supra) wherein the apex court had held that the buyer/distributor of the goods was not entitled to step into the shoes of the manufacturer and claim the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act on t....