2004 (2) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants in the above mentioned Civil Appeals was M/s Andhra Asbestos Corporation Ltd. and that since the assessees who are appellants before him were successor-in-interest of the mines and machinery used by M/s. Andhra Asbestos Corporation Ltd. for mining and processing of asbestos fibre the assessee-appellant before him can take the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the process of separating asbestos fibre from asbestos rock is not manufacturing process and, therefore, there is no duty liability attached to the process. The refund application submitted by the respondent-herein were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n'ble Supreme Court in their capacity as manufacturer challenging the duty demand against the Corporation. The respondent herein has paid duty on a demand made against them as manufacturers. Therefore the Revenue is fully justified in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that unless the demand against the respondent was challenged by them before appropriate authority they cannot claim refund of the duty paid even if it is accepted that the duty was paid under protest. In Paragraph 70 of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows : "We may now consider a situation where a manufacturer pays a duty unquestioningly - or he questions the levy but fails ....