ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of power transmission line structure parts and railway electrification structure parts on job work basis filed price list in Part I showing the assessable value as the sum total of the cost of raw materials and job charges but was directed to include 10% margin of profit in addition to job charges. Respondent filed Price Lists Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 1985 with protest letter and paid duty. Thereafter respondent filed Price Lists Nos. 16/86 and 21/87 including 10% margin of profit besides job charges in the assessable value. In respect of the period from 1-4-1984 to August, 1984, the Assistant Collector passed an adjudication order dated 3-8-1988 dropping the demand stating that job charges included in the price included also margin of profit. Thereafter on 1-11-1988 respondent filed refund claim on the element of margin of profit separately added, in respect of the period from 7-8-1985 to 22-8-1988. The Assistant Collector disallowed as barred by limitation the claim for Rs. 1,10,399.08 being the refund claim on duty paid on goods removed pursuant to Price Lists Nos. 16/86, 21/87 and 28/87, covering the period from 11-4-1986 to 22-8-1988 on the ground that the protest letter related to earlier Price Lists and did not relate to latter price lists. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order stating that the protest letter covered all price lists filed subsequently and allowed refund of the part rejected by the Assistant Collector. The department being aggrieved has filed the present appeal.
2. Copies of all relevant price lists are seen at pages 19 and 21 of the Paper Book submitted by the respondent. Each of the price lists contained specific endorsement that duty on the element of separate margin of profit of 10% is being paid under protest. It is, therefore, clear that the price list itself has been filed under protest and duty was paid under protest, therefore, bar of limitation alleged by the Assistant collector is not sustainable. The order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is correct. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. The cross objection, being merely supportive is also dismissed.