SCHENECTADY-BECK LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner by filing this petition has challenged an order made by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Bombay.

(3.) In this case, the Revenue has not pressed the claim in the ground of alternative remedy but has sought to press into service in the case of Union of India V/s. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd, 2000 116 ELT 401 . In the instant case, claim was made before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs at Ankleshwar. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the protest was ab initio void and the claim was time barred. The Assistant Commissioner further observed that, the assessment order could not have been appealed. About unjust enrichment, the Assistant Commissioner held that there was no question of unjust enrichment. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was taken in appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), who arrived at a conclusion that the payments were made under protest. If that is the finding recorded, we fail to understand how a view can be taken that he is not entitled to lodge the claim. The appellate authority at page 58 in para (c) held as under.