2000 (7) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. This appeal arises from OIA No. 101/93 dated 2-3-1991 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of refund claim solely on the ground that appellants have not followed the procedure prescribed under sub-rules 4 to 6 of Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and hence letter dated 23-10-82 protesting the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ollector intimating the duties paid under protest is sufficient compliance with requirement of Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rest of the rules are only procedural and not mandatory and cannot be treated as mandatory. Further reliance is also placed on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. as in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). 3. Heard ld. Counsel S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Roche Products Ltd. v. U.O.I. (supra), it is seen that a letter of protest lodged to the Asst. Collector has been considered to be sufficient compliance for the purpose of considering it having been filed under protest for purpose of refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Bombay High Court had further held therein that ot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X