2008 (11) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... job workers of one M/s. Syngenta India Ltd., Mumbai. The duty was paid by them in respect of the goods cleared by adopting the sale value of M/s. Syngenta India Ltd. instead of arriving at the assessable value of the same on the basis of cost of production and profit, in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints Ltd. reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). Such duty was paid by them in their PLA on 29-3-2003, 7-5-2004 and 4-6-2004. Subsequently they filed a refund claim on 21-6-2004 on the ground that by adopting the wrong assessable value, excess duty stands paid by them. 3. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dt. 25-8-2004 proposing to reject the refund claim of Rs.1,01,30,735/- on the g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r dt. 6-9-2004 and observed that the appellants have themselves stated that the differential duty was paid by them voluntarily on the ill advice of their principal manufacturer and the same was not required to be paid and has been paid through mistake. Accordingly, he rejected the appellant's plea that the duty amount was paid under protest due to coercion by the preventive officers. He further observed that the appellants have not submitted any evidence to show that such payment of the differential duty was under protest. 5. Assailing the above reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals), ld. Advocate Shri Dave has produced on record a letter dt.10-4-2003 addressed to the Superintendent intimating that the duty was paid under protest. However, we....