9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal arises from order in appeal dated 23-11-1990 passed by Collector (Appeals) confirming the rejection of the refund claim by the Assistant Collector on time bar in terms of the provision of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Before the Collector, the appellants have stated that since they did not have the essentiality certificate as required under Notification 97/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request to register protest on the Bill of Entry was not accepted by the Customs Authorities orally. Their letters were submitted in person, which were not accepted. They have stated that the Department of Customs cannot take a stand that there is proof that the protest letters have not been received by them because the appellant is unable to produce acknowledgement for the receipt. It is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced any proof of having sent a letter by post or postal receipt for having sent these letters of protest which has been filed alongwith the appeal papers. Therefore, the rejection of the appeal by the Collector is justified. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants in the appeal memorandum and the impugned order. It is the contention of the appellants that they ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey had filed letter of protest alongwith Bill of Entry and the same was not received is not sufficient. There is a procedure for lodging a protest, which has not been followed by the importer. There is no endorsement on the Bill of Entry that entry was paid `under protest . The lower authorities, therefore, held that the claim of the importer is not substantiated. We are constrained to hold that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
