2004 (4) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri P.M. Rao, JDR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per Shri P. S. Bajaj, Member (J)-This appeal has been filedby the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which theCommissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of theDeputy Commissioner who rejected the refund claim of the appellants.The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in thegeneration, transm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants did not amount tomanufacture, Their claim was rejected on the ground of limitation bythe Assistant Commissioner and that order was affirmed by theCommissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. But the appellantsapproached the Apex Court and that Court set aside the order of theTribunal and held that the payment of duty by the appellants wasunder protest. The Apex Court directed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the Tribunal's judgment in Tecil Chemicals &Hydro Power Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin 2003 (55) RLT 643 = 2003 (107) ECR357 (T). On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated thecorrectness of the impugned order. 4. We have heard both sides. We find from the record that theauthorities below have found that the parts of the transmissiontowers were manufactured by the appellants out of the raw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earlier order of the Tribunal who confirmed the orders of theauthorities below rejecting the refund claim of the appellants on thequestion of limitation for having not paid the duty under protest.That order of the Apex Court debars the Department again from urgingthat the duty was not paid under protest. 5. In Sinkhai Synthetics and Chemicals P. Ltd. v. CCJ5, Aurangabad(supra] referred by the C....