ORDER
Moheeb Ali, Member (T)
1. Appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (A) who in the impugn ed order, disallowed the claim for refund to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. The appellant is a manufacturer of high coated abrasives, phenolic resin etc. He paid duty on phenolic resin under protest during the period 80-87. The Supreme Court held that phenolic resin is not dutiable and that is how the refund claim arose. The Additional Commissioner sanctioned an amount of Rs. 6.53 lakhs towards the refund of duty. The Revenue filed an appeal against this sanction. The Commissioner disallowed Rs. 60,000/-out of this amount. Hence this appeal.
2. The Commissioner’s reasoning is that the appellant started paying duty under protest only after 6.9.81 the payments made prior to this day cannot be considered as having been paid under protest. The duty paid during the period December 1980 to 6.9.81 is Rs. 60,000/-. The Commissioner held that since this amount is not covered under any protest letter. The claim for refund to this extent is time barred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. I observe that the appellant filed a classification list in December 1980, indicating Phenolic Resin as one of the goods produced by him. He also indicated that it is not dutiable. But kept paying duty till 6.9.1981 without any protest. It is only later (7.9.81) the appellant paid duty under protest. The appellant’s claim for refund itself is based on the claim that duty was paid under protest. The Commissioner was right in rejecting the claim upto Rs. 60,000/- on the ground that payment of duty during the period Dec. 80 to 6.9.81 is not covered under any protest. I see no reason to interfere with the order.
5. The appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court)