2017 (4) TMI 489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Nagpur to whom they removed their goods for job work, captively consumed and paid the duty on selling price. On the belief that for the clearance of the goods through their own unit, valuation should be done in term of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, accordingly, refund claim for differential duty on difference of value between the value at which duty was paid and on the value to be arrived at as per Rule 8, was filed by the Respondent. Show cause notices were issued proposing denial of refund on the merit of the issue i.e. on valuation as well as on time bar. As the refund was filed after one year from the date of payment of duty, sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on the merit as well as on the time bar holdi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vide their letter dated 27/6/2004 filed different letters to the range superintendent of the Central Excise wherein their intention to pay duty under protest was disclosed as the valuation is correctly governed by Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2000. Therefore once the duty was paid under protest the limitation of one year is not applicable and the impugned order is correct and legal. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. BCL forgings Ltd [2005(192) ELT 922(Tri. Mumbai)] (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Prabhat Chemicals[2006(194) ELT 184(Tri. Del)] (c) Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Cus,. Chennai[2009(247) ELT 371 (Tri. Chennai)] 4. I h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2008, therefore in my considered view the dispute was not resolved till this Tribunal has passed aforesaid order. It is not under dispute that respondent have filed detailed letter regarding the payment of duty under protest, it is also not under dispute that even though the Commissioner(Appeals) has decided the issue on merit in favour of the respondent but at the same time the revenue had directed respondent to keep on paying the duty on sale price and not on value as per Rule 8 due to the revenue's filing of appeal in Tribunal. Therefore, whatever duty was paid by the respondent is indeed 'under protest'. Relevant provisions under Section 11B(i) second proviso reads as under: "Provided further that the limitation of one y....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at (3) above, filed on   26-3-02 5. Order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the above claim passed on 18-9-02 6. Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the OLA At (3) above on 30-5-03 7. Impugned order passed by CCE (A) on 31-3-04 2. We find that the appellants have made the payment for the impugned amounts in pursuance of the order confirming the demands pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The payments were made on 13-1-98 ad 27-3-98 and the lower appellate authority's order dropping the demand was passed on 12-5-98. It is settled law that duty paid pending appeal is in the nature of duty payment under protest. Moreover, the department filed an appeal against the lower appellate auth....