2003 (11) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proceedings and the said amount had been deposited under protest by the petitioners with the respondents when the appeals filed by the petitioners were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the said appeals by an order dated 5-3-2003, [2003 (157) E.L.T. A136 (S.C.)] whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the concerned intermediate products were not dutiable. In the circumstances, the petitioners were entitled to get back the amount, which had been paid by them, when the appeals filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were pending. The amount had to be paid by the petitioners during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not gr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 1,16,41,592/- as duty paid, though the said amount was paid under protest during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the orders passed by the concerned authorities as no stay had been granted by the Supreme Court. 7.The learned advocate has taken us through the relevant orders as well as the following judgments : (1)        Parle International Ltd. v. Union of India, 2001 (127) E.L.T. 329 (2)        Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) In addition to the above referred judgments, he has also referred to a circular dated 2-1-2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....considered the judgments and the circular referred to hereinabove. 11.Upon considering the facts and looking to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.C. Patel & D.H. Waghela, JJ.), it cannot be doubted that the amount had been paid by the petitioners under protest at the time when appeals had been pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said amount was not the amount of duty and, therefore it was not necessary for the petitioner even to submit an application for refund as laid down in the circular dated 2-1-2002. 12.We do not agree with the submissions made by the learned Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel that the amount, which had been paid under protest, was the amount of duty and, therefore, it wa....