2017 (4) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y on the said goods to the tune of Rs. 19,16,917/- (Rs.3,14,923/- + Rs. 16,01,994/-). The issue whether export duty is payable on the goods supplied to SEZ unit was under challenge before various High Courts as well as the Jurisdictional High Court. The issue was settled in favour of the assessee by the judgment in the case of M/s Essar Steel Limited Vs Union of India [2010 (249) ELT-3 (Guj)] wherein it was held that supplies to SEZ would not attract export duty. The appellants submitted a protest letter dated 27.02.2009 in regard to the duty paid by them on 12.02.2009 to the tune of Rs. 16,01,994/-. With regard to the duty amount of Rs. 3,14,923/- paid by appellant on 22.07.2008 no protest letter was filed by the appellant. On realising th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayment of duty was made under protest either before payment of duty or either at the time of payment of duty. With this view, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of refund claim as being hit by limitation. Hence this appeal. 4. On behalf of appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. Mohan Kodura submitted that the appellant is not contesting the refund claim of Rs. 3,14,923/- and is confining the contest only with regard to the refund claim of Rs. 16,01,994/- paid by them on 12.02.2009. That on 27.02.2009 the appellants had issued a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, APSEZ, Visakhapatnam informing that the export duty with interest has been paid by them under protest. In the same letter they had requested to release the ban....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR is that appellants at the time of paying the duty has not complied with the procedure to record the protest. In the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority has discussed in para 10 (ii) that the appellants have not followed the procedure prescribed for payment of duty under protest as provided in para 3.2 of Part-III of Chapter-13 of CBEC s Central Excise Manual. On perusal of the said para 3.2 it is seen that, there is no procedure stated therein for marking protest by the assessee in the said para. The Ld. AR also has not been able to explain or point out as to what is the exact procedure laid in law that has to be followed for marking the protest of assessee. It is the case of the department that there is no document to show that....