TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case the refund claim filed by the appellants on 24-1-1980 for an amount of Rs. 1,704.83 covering the period from 4-8-1979 to 24-7-1979 was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as time barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeal preferred by them was also rejected by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) by the impugned order. Before the lower a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 25th March, 1987 the appellants, have requested this Tribunal to dispense with their personal presence and to decide the appeal on the basis of their submissions on record. We, therefore, asked learned J.D.R. for the respondent-Collector to argue for the respondent. We have heard her arguments. She has stated that reasons for protest were not mentioned in the gate passes and the protest was stam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason for paying the duty under protest is not mentioned thereon. In view of the fact that Rule 232-B was not in effect during the relevant time, the protest made on the gate passes is to be accepted was valid for the purpose ef Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules in this case. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order with the direction to pay the differential duty for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
