9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of the enhancement of the declared value of the imported material. The appellants filed refund claim and supported their claim by a copy of the letter No. S/26-58 59/90 Group-C, dated 6-12-1991 under which the appellants were informed that their declared assessable value has been accepted as assessable value for the goods. However, in the letter there was no indication that the goods were re-assessed. Accordingly, the refund claim was rejected. The Asstt. Collector while rejecting the refund claims, among other things, held that there is nothing on record to show that the importer has registered any protest at the time of payment of duty nor had they produced any evidence to show that the above procedure was followed. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the RT-12, that the endorsement makes it clear that the department had been duly intimated by the appellant about their intention to pay duty under protest; that in that view of the matter the claim of the appellant is held as not barred by time. He accordingly referred to Para 9 of this judgment for the purpose of his contention that filing a request under protest is directory and not mandatory. The ld. Counsel also stated that filing the protest by submission of a letter is only procedural requirement and that his substantive right cannot be denied for non-observance of a procedural requirement. 4. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the refund has arisen out of the order dated 6-12-1991 issued by the Asstt. Collector, Group-B, Bombay C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s correct. The ld. JDR submitted that since the categorical finding was that simply making endorsement on the duty paying document without submission of a formal letter is not a protest. He submitted that the refund claim has rightly been refused. He reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the issue before us is whether limitation was applicable in the instant case. Two grounds have been taken by the appellant. The first ground is that the words `under protest were marked in the relevant Bills of Entry which number 22. The second ground is that the refund arose out of an order and, therefore, no limitation from the appellants point of view was applicable. Therefore, to decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
