TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in the impugned judgment dated December 8, 1994 has not accepted the contention of the appellant that the payment was made under protest. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows : The Central Workshop of the M.P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Electricity Board') at Bhilai undertakes the fabrication of transmission line towers, sub-station structures and Line Hardware materials. On November 29, 1976, the Inspector, Central Excise, Raipur addressed a letter to the Divisional Engineer at the Central Workshop of the Electricity Board wherein it was stated : "I have to state that the above mentioned workshop manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for issue of licence for our Central Workshop, Bhilai under protest." Thereafter the Electricity Board took the licence required under Central Excise Rules and also paid the excise duty. Subsequently a claim for refund was made by the appellant which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Tribunal. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has held that protest was lodged only regarding applying for Central Excise licence and not to payment of excise duty. The Tribunal was also of the view that the ground for protest as spelt out in the letter dated November 30, 1976 was that duty was not payable for the reason that the workshop had been set up by the Electricity Board for fabrication of towers, structu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Central Excise Rules, has held that the assessee need not particularise the grounds of protest and that it would be open to him to say that according to him the duty is not exigible according to law. 5. The question that requires consideration is whether the letter dated November 30, 1976 sent by the Divisional Engineer, Central Workshop of the Electricity Board can be regarded as a protest against payment of excise duty for the purpose of second proviso to Section 11B of the Act. In our opinion, the said letter cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with the letter of the Inspector Central Excise dated November 30, 1976. In the letter of the Inspector of Central Excise it is stated that the Workshop of the Electricity Bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p. In the said letter the Divisional Engineer further stated that having regard to the fact that the Inspector of Central Excise had emphasised the necessity of obtaining a licence, he (the Divisional Engineer) was submitting an application in Form AL-4 for issue of licence for the Central Workshop, Bhilai under protest. A narrow interpretation of the said letter would give the impression that the Divisional Engineer was only lodging his protest against obtaining a licence. But, in our opinion, the said letter has to be read as a whole in the context in which the requirement for obtaining licence was being insisted, namely, that the goods manufactured at the Central Workshop were leviable to excise duty under T.I. 68, which liability was di....