9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. None for the appellants despite today s date having been given in the presence of the representative of the appellants on the last date i.e. 17-5-99. In the circumstances, I have heard the learned JDR in support of the Revenue s case. I have also gone through the order-in-original as well as the impugned order. The issue in the present case relates to refund of duty paid in excess by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ak. Alternatively we may, if the customer so insists clear the rubber blocks on payment of appropriate duty under Heading 4016.19. It has been found by the lower authorities that the statement, as mentioned above, cannot be treated as letter of protest envisaged in Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The lower authority has found that the Director has merely stated that they may clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim within six months of that date i.e. 25-1-94. This refund claim has been filed on 21-5-96. Learned JDR, therefore, submits that looked at from any angle refund claim is barred by time. 2. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I do not agree with the plea of the Revenue or the finding of the lower authority to the effect that the statement of the Director is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim within six months from that date. They cannot keep the matter pending without any time limit, but I notice that the refund claim has been filed on 21-5-96 i.e. about 2 years and 4 months after the approval of the classification list which is well beyond the period of six months. Consequently, the refund is clearly barred by time. Hence I dismiss the appeal of the appellant herein. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
