9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - The short point to be considered in the present case is whether claim filed by the party was barred by time. Both the authorities below held that the refund claim filed by the party was barred by time. Hence this appeal. 2. Shri R.G. Seth, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the refund claim is with refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Neelamalai Tea/Coffee Estates and Industries v. C.C.E., Madras reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2426 (CEGAT). In this case it was held that it is true that Notification 198/76-CE did not require the approval of the Assistant Collector, but the Trade Notice issued by the Collector very categorically stated that clearances in excess would be entitled for exemption only after the declaration was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearances would support. Since the Assistant Collector took time in giving his approval and the appellants, thereafter, quantify the amount of concession admissible to them and filed a specific refund claim. Their refund claim was well in time and it was not necessary for them to pay duty under protest. Accordingly, their refund claim was not barred by limitation. 3. Arguing for the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 358 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has observed that if no particular proforma was prescribed to claim refund, letter of protest can be treated as a refund claim. In pare 10 of that judgment it was observed that if this could not be said to be a protest, one fails to understand what else it could be. In the present case also, it is clear from the letter dated 30-3-1977 that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
