1997 (10) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dayan Krishnan and Trideep Pais, Advocates, for the Respondents. [Order per : K. Sankararaman, Member (T)]. - The appeal by the department is against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras holding that respondent herein should be held to have made the payment of duty in question under protest whereby their subsequent refund was held to have been filed i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 28-2-1987 does not serve the bill as far as the requirement under Rule 233B is concerned. It was clarified by the learned Counsel for the respondent in reply to the submissions of Shri Satnam Singh that clearances had taken place during the aforesaid period while duty was paid by them on 31-3-1987 under cover of a letter containing the remarks referred to above. The order-in-original passed by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of duty as having been paid under protest. The apparent and strict deficiency vis-a-vis Rule 233B would relate to the non-endorsement of the Gate Passes and Monthly Returns with the remarks "paid under protest" would not be material in the present case as the goods were removed without such documents. The only relevant document was the letter addressed by them to the department when the payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X