POLYCONE PAPER PVT LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed agains the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No. M-1134/BI-330/85 dated 29-8-1985.

(2.) During the hearing of the appeal, Shri Hidayatullah narrated the facts of the case and submitted that he is confining his arguments only with regard to the refusal o refund amounting to Rs. 9,01,129.79 by the Collector (Appeals) Insofar as the refusa of refund amounting to Rs. 77,238.64 covering the duty on paper cores and spools, he made it clear that he is not Dressing the aooeal with regard to this amount but reserve: his right to agitate in the appropriate forum. There was a dispute about the classifica tion of paper cones and tubes which led the appellants to file an appeal before the Col lector (Appeals), who by his order dated 19-4-1984 upheld the assessee's contention that they are classifiable under T.I. 17(4) and are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 66/82, dated 28-2-1982 exempting Articles of paper. Following this decision the appellants are reported to have filed their claim for refund of duty already paid on such ar ticles of paper. Originally, refund claim was for an amount of Rs. 24,17,017.83. This refund claim covered the period from 1-3-1982 to 20-4-1984. The Asstt. Collector al lowed the refund claim partly. He, however, rejected the claim for Rs. 3,92,882.99 in respect of the period from 1-3-1982 to 15-3-1982 on the ground that there was no protest lodged. He also rejected the refund claim for Rs. 9,01,129.79 in respect of the period from 1-3-1983 to 30-11-1983 on the ground that no proper protest has been made and the claim is hit by time bar. The Asstt. Collector also rejected the refund claim for Rs. 77,238.64 relating to paper cones and tubes on the ground that these goods were not the subject matter of appeal decided by the Collector (Appeals) on 19-4-1984 and hence consequential relief cannot be granted on these goods. Against this order of the Asstt.Collector, the apellants filed the appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) allowed their claim for Rs. 3,93,882.99 holding that valid protest existed from Rs. 27-3-1982. However, the Collector (Appeals) disallowed their refund claim for Rs. 9,01,129.79 and also Rs. 77,238.64. Though the appellants filed the appeal against the order of rejection by the Collector (Appeals) with regard to the aforesaid two amounts, he is pressing the appeal only in respect of their claim for Rs. 9,01,129.79/-. He also brought out the following facts for purpose of better appreciation of his appeal:-

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides and perusing the available records, the short point for our consideration boils down to the question whether the appellants' letter dated 3-3-1983 enclosing therewith C.L. No.2/83-84 is a valid protest giving the benefit of proviso to Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It would be necessary for us to reproduce the letter dated 3-3-1983 -