2003 (8) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....K. Agrawal, Member (T) 1. This Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 120/2003 dated 21.2.2003 by which Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim of M/s. Iron Factory holding that protest was not disposed of by the Competent Authority under proper orders. 2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a classification....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod 3.7.89 to 7.11.89; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 286/2000 dated 26.4.2000 rejected the refund claim as time barred; that, however, on Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim. He, further, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the protest once lodged stands only disposed of by the Competent Authority; that when the h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claimed by the respondents is not hit by time limn. The learned Advocate also mentioned that the second proviso to Section 11B(1) of the Act clearly provides that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest; that the vacation of the protest after the Tribunal has passed the orders in their favour is for the subsequent period and it does not affect the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which the duty was paid under protest has been decided initially by the Competent Adjudicating Authority and later on by the Appellate Authority, the question of protest remaining continued does not arise. The Appellants became eligible to claim refund of duty as soon as the Order was passed by the Tribunal in December 1990 and the operation of which was not stayed. As per the provisions of Secti....