9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (J)]. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. M-1246-1251/BD-547-557/86, dated 5-5-1987, confirming the Order-in-Original No. 30/67 refund. The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 12,11,585.87p. on 2-1-1985 for the duty paid on LDPE Bags for a period on 1-4-1982 to 20-7-1984. They pleaded that they were not hit by period of limitation as the duty was paid under protest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants submitted that the letter of protest was already filed on 1-7-1982 and all those documents have been affixed with the stamp of duty having been paid under protest and have thus, complied with all the requirements of Rule 233B of the Rules. As to the unjust enrichment, he has pleaded that the goods have been supplied only to IPCL and the benefit of refund would be by way of passed over to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otest, that could be overlooked, as has been held by series of Judicial Pronouncement to the effect that minor procedural lapses ought not be considered, when the basic requirement of filing the letter of protest is done. This is not the case here and as such the rejection of refund claim as barred by limitation, is not sustainable. 5. The second issue remains is of unjust enrichment. As has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mers, and it [is] not possible for the assessee to confer the benefit of refund to those customers, then he has to direct credit of the said amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 6. With the observations as above and in view of the finding that the demand is not hit by period of limitation, by allowing the Appeal, we direct the authority below to examine the claim of refund in the light of the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
