Before the Tribunal also, only the question of limitation was put against the appellant.
We heard learned companynsel for parties.
Hence this appeal.
The letter raised many objections against the levy of packing charges.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.1984 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
The companypany preferred the claim for refund of Rs.22,43,002.09 alleged to be duty on price of packing material of the aforesaid product paid during July 4, 1974 to March 1, 1975.
559/84 A. Soli J. Sorabjee, A.N. Haksar, Sanjay Grover and K.J. John for the Appellant.
500 of 1985.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The ground on which the claim was made are number disputed in this ap peal.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Indira Sawhney, Miss A. Subhashini and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondent.
923/81 A in Order No.
This claim of refund was rejected by Assistant Collector of Central Excise Tirunelveli on the ground that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 was applicable as duty was number paid under protest and the claim was barred by time.
The brief facts necessary for determination are.
It was stated that the duty on packing charges on superfine cement was number leviable.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA, J. This appeal involves the determination of the only question as to whether the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.22,42,002.09 paid as excise duty on the price of packing material used for packing of superfine cement which according to the appellant was paid under protest whereas according to the respondent, it was number paid under protest and therefore, the claim of refund is barred by time.
On appeal, the Appellate Collector of Custom and Central Excise by the judgment dated February 7, 1981 maintained the order passed by the Assistant Collector on the same ground of limitation, as the merits of the claim was number disputed by the department.
Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessful ly approached the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal also took the view that the letter dated June 11, 1974 was number a protest to save the period of limi tation.
The appellant finally said If the department feels that the duty is leviable on packing charges, we have numberop tion, but to suggest the rates fixed by the Government of India from quarter to quarter, as packing charges.
The appellant company is a manufacturer of superfine cement.
The Tribunal by its order dated July 25, 1984 has stated Before us, the only question argued was the question of limitation.
