TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not required to reverse the cenvet credit and the same was contested by the appellant. The claim of the appellant is that they have reversed the said amount under protest, therefore, the time limit prescribed of one year is not applicable in the facts of the case. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant reversed the cenvet credit is under protest as the reversal of cenvet credit is being contested, therefore, the time limit prescribed for one year is not applicable and the refund claim cannot be rejected as time barred in the light of the following decisions: - (i) ITEL Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut - 2014 (301) ELT 288 (Ker.). (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Food Industries vs. UOI - 2003 (152) ELT 285 (Guj.), CCE, Coimbatore vs. Pricol ltd. - 2015 (320) ELT 703 (Mad). He further submits that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel are not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. After hearing both the sides, it is a fact are not in dispute that the appellant has intimated the reversal of cenvet credit to the revenue, in that circumstances, whether contesting the reversal of cenvet credit by the appellant amounts to reversal under protest or not? The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "4. We have considered the submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision in the case of M/s. Wardes Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has answered as to what constituted payment made under protest, in the following manner : "10. The above facts are found in the findings recorded by the Commissioner in its order dated 1-6-2007. A conspectus consideration of the above facts only go to show that the payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3E Infotech (supra) has categorically held that even when Service Tax was paid under mistake of law, the period of limitation cannot be invoked to deny the refund.'' 9. Further, in the case of Bayshore Glass Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra) again examined the issue by this Tribunal and observed as under:- ''4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that before assessment of Customs duty, the value has been enhanced on the Bill of Entry and no order has been issued separately. It is well settled law that filing of Appeal is by itself a protest. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Appellant without challenging the assessable value has filed claim for refund of duty said to have been ....