Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Further, the ratio of the judgement in M/s. Posddar Pigments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur reported in [2006 (206) ELT 563 (Tri.-Del.)] was relied upon the relevant portion of the judgement has been reproduced below:-

"5. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find from the record that the TR-6 challans specifically and clearly mention that interest is paid Under Protest. It is very clearly brought out by the appellants that they wished to pay the "interest C/40406,40420-40424,40494/2020 C/40494/2020 with C/CO/40210/2020 under protest" when they cleared the goods from CWC. By not furnishing a letter for 'under protest' payment, the appellants have not done anything wrong, since TR-6 challans themselves on which the payment is made, could be considered as intention of making the payment of interest 'under protest'. The Tribunal in the case of Sunil Synchem Ltd. (supra) has held as under :

27."

6. Further I find that the Division Bench in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Piramal Spg. & Wvg. Mills (supra) has held as follows :

"2. We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the records. The period in dispute is prior to the introduction of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules which lays down the procedure for payment of duty under protest. During the relevant period, no procedure was laid down for lodging protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that duty was paid under protest as the Gate passes, PLAs and RT 12 returns all carrying the endorsement "duty paid under protest". In the absence of any procedure for lodging protest, such endorsements have rightly been held to evidence of payment of duty under protest and in the light of such endorsements, the absence of any letter of protest cannot change the character of the duty being paid under protest. We, therefore, hold that the refund claims are not time barred."

v. It was stressed that the Original Authority never considered the subject bills for re-assessment when numerous bills were re-assessed by granting exemption claimed by the Appellants.

10. The Ld. Advocate Shri S. Murugappan appearing for the Appellant interalia submitted that the availability of duty exemption for Ethernet switches was decided in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble Tribunal in terms of Final order read with miscellaneous order reported in [2020 (11) TMI (9)-CESTAT] and [2021 (2) TMI 258 CESTAT, Chennai]. In respect of IP phones, it was stressed that the order relied upon by the lower appellate authority under reference is Order-in-Appeal No. 92/2020 dated 27.02.2020 was being contested by the department in an appeal before the Honble Tribunal in C/40494/2020 which issue was also covered in favour of the appellants in their own case decided by the Hon'ble bench in CESTAT, New Delhi and reported in [2020 (12) TMI 870] and also by the Hon'ble Mumbai bench of CESTAT in terms of Final orders in A86416-86753/2023 and A86754-86755/2023 dated 10.08.2023. Thus, the Ld. Advocate has submitted that on merits the appellants were eligible for exemption benefit claimed. Regarding duty payment under protest, it was submitted vide letter dated 08.03.2016 that till the issue was resolved all payments made by the C/40406,40420-40424,40494/2020 C/40494/2020 with C/CO/40210/2020 Appellants were to be treated as Payment of duty under protest and in this regard reliance was placed on the following two decisions:-

14. The second issue that is required to be decided in these appeals is about the correct classification of the imported IP Phones and Ethernet Switches.

Classification of IP Phones:-

15.1 Whether the IP Phones are classifiable under CTH 85176990 as contended by the Department or classifiable under CTH 85171810 as claimed by the appellant?

15.2 In respect of IP Phones covered under 51 Bills of Entry, we find that the subject imports were initially classified under CTH 85176990 whereas the Appellant was of the view that they were correctly classifiable under CTH 85171810 with nil rate of Customs duty. Accordingly, the Appellant filed refund claims which were rejected by the Department as not maintainable without first amending / re-assessment of the original self- assessment made in the Bill of Entry, following the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in M/s. Priya Blue Industries (supra). Upon further appeal, the lower appellate authority accepted the classification claimed by the Appellants in respect of IP Phones and directed the Original Authority to decide afresh with a direction to cause verification of duty C/40406,40420-40424,40494/2020 C/40494/2020 with C/CO/40210/2020 payments made under protest and by following the earlier decision in Order- in-Appeal no. 92/2020 in the appeal pertaining to classification of VOIP Phones. However, in the case of Video screen phones, the classification under CTH 85176990 was upheld by the lower Appellate Authority. We find that the Departmental appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 92/2020 is also pending before this forum in C/40494/2020.