K. Sankararaman, Member (T)

1. This appeal by M/s. Metroark Pvt. Ltd. is directed against Order-in-Appeal-dated 6-8-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby he had upheld the order of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, disallowing part of their refund claim filed with him in respect of Gate Passes not stamped with the endorsement "Under Protest". The Collector (Appeals) held in his impugned order that the contention of the Assistant Collector was correct in terms of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, which clearly provides that an endorsement should be made on the gate pass that duty had been paid under protest. He went on to add that if the appellants had not made such indication, the assumption that the clearances were made without protest would be justified.

2. The appellants were represented by Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned Advocate, when the appeal was heard. He submitted that the appellants had been paying duty under protest on their products which were wrongly classified by the department under Tariff Item 15A, as against the correct classification 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Collectorate had pas