9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against the order dated 19-6-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The brief facts are that the appellants herein filed two refund claims for the period 1-4-1989 to 21-12-1989 and 1-4-1990 to 4-12-1990. Both of which were received in the jurisdictional Assistant Collector s office on 18-6-1991. The grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng copy of protest letter which is a requirement for the purpose under Rule 233(B) of CESA. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner held that the claims were time barred and rejected them. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. We have heared Shri Harbans Singh, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Jangir Singh, ld. DR. 3. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact at variance with Rule 233B it can be reasonably held that there has been substantial compliance therewith. In this context, the case law cited before us by the ld. counsel would come to their aid. These are Tribunal s decision on the case of Mahalaxmi Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 352 (Tribunal) = 1995 (11) RLT 118. In that case the Tribunal has held that end ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant period will have to be construed as payment of duty under protest for the reasons stated above. The appeal is therefore disposed of by setting aside the impugned order directing grant of refund after the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner satisfies himself regarding the endorsement of payment of duty under protest on the gate passes and RT 12 returns relating to the period in question a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
