WORKWELL ENGINEERING CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated facts of this case are as follows : -

(2.) LEARNED JDR has made a submission that for lodging a protest a formal letter of protest must be filed by the appellants. That has not been done in the present case. Only the expression 'under protest' has been written by the appellants on the relevant TR -6 challan dated 12 -3 -1987. He, therefore, submits that the payment cannot be considered to be under protest in terms of Rule 233 -B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further points out that as rightly held by the lower appellate authority the duty was paid on account of exceeding the exemption value in terms of Notification 175/86 and not on the basis of wrong classification of the product. He, therefore, submits relying on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Jain Ceramics Industry reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 186 that even payment of duty under protest on the above ground is of no help to the appellants for subsequent approval of classification list on the basis of which the present refund claim is based. Learned JDR, prays for dismissing the appeal.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the pleas advanced by the learned JDR. We have also gone through the grounds of the appellants' memo of appeal before us. We agree with the submission of the learned JDR in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Jain Ceramics Industry, supra that the protest lodged by the appellants on the basis of applicability of Notification 175/86 cannot be made applicable to the ground on which the refund claim has been based i.e. on the ground of classification of the product under Tariff Heading 84.37, as claimed by the appellants and as against classification under Tariff Heading 84.79 as made by the Department during the relevant period. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence, we reject the same.