1990 (11) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Desai waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner Company manufactures Vacuum Brake Hoses. In March 1986, the petitioner Company filed a classification list classifying the product under sub-heading 4009.92 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The classification list was approved on October 3,1986. The Company filed fresh price list on December 17,1986 clas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whatsoever for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the order passed by the Appellate Collector has acquired finality. 3. The Company, in pursuance of the order passed by the Appellate Collector, sought refund of the duty paid in accordance with the order passed by the Assistant Collector and which order was found to be erroneous. The application for refund was not disposed of by the respondents,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he same on any count whatsoever. The submission of Shri Vahanvati is correct and deserves acceptance. The duty was recovered from the Company on the basis that the product manufactured attracts sub-heading 4009.92 of the Tariff and that was the basis of order passed by the Assistant Collector. The order of the Assistant Collector was set aside by the Appellate Collector and it was ordered that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er protest. According to the learned counsel, Rule 173B(3) of the Central Excise Rules demands that the refund is permissible provided the duty is paid under protest. The submission is entirely misconceived. Sub-rule (3) reads as under : "Where the assessee disputes the rate of duty approved by the proper officer in respect of any goods, he may, after giving an intimation to that effect to such....