Substantial compliance with protest requirement under Rule 233B accepted; refund cannot fail on a technical objection.

A protest letter addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B, so the refund claim could not be rejected merely because it was not addressed to the Assistant Collector. On the documentary objection, the refusal of refund for non-production of original duty-paying documents was not sustained; the matter required verification of supporting records such as certificates, audited balance sheets, bank scrolls and PLA proof, so the issue was remanded for fresh consideration after opportunity to produce the documents. The note states that one refund claim was granted and the other sent back for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a letter of protest addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise amounted to compliance with the requirement of payment under protest under Rule 233B; (ii) Whether the rejection of the refund claim for non-production of original duty-paying documents was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a letter of protest addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise amounted to compliance with the requirement of payment under protest under Rule 233B.

Analysis: The protest letter addressed to the Superintendent was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B. The objection that the letter was not addressed to the Assistant Collector was held to be too technical in view of the Tribunal's earlier decisions recognising compliance where the protest was otherwise clearly lodged.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected on the ground of absence of valid payment under protest.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the refund claim for non-production of original duty-paying documents was sustainable.

Analysis: On the documentary issue, the matter required verification of materials such as original certificates, audited balance sheets, bank scrolls and related proof of deposit in PLA. The proper course was to remit the matter for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce the necessary documents.

Conclusion: The rejection on this ground was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in one appeal.

Final Conclusion: The common dispute on refund was accepted in principle on the protest issue, while the documentary aspect was sent back for reconsideration in one appeal and the other refund claim was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A protest letter addressed to the Superintendent can amount to substantial compliance with Rule 233B, and a refund claim should not be rejected on a purely technical objection where the protest was otherwise duly lodged; documentary deficiencies, where relevant, may justify remand for fresh examination.

---