Duty refund admissibility turns on valid protest and Rule 233B compliance, with adverse inference favouring the assessee.

Refund was held admissible where the Assistant Collector had already sanctioned the claim after accepting the protest letter and the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 80/80. The protest letter was treated as a valid protest against duty payment, and the absence of departmental records on RT 12 returns and gate passes led to an adverse inference in favour of the assessee. On that basis, the requirements of Rule 233B were treated as satisfied. The Collector's time-bar reasoning did not override these findings, and remand was considered unnecessary because the relevant old records were unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund was liable to be denied on the ground of time bar and non-compliance with the procedure for payment of duty under protest, and whether the assessee remained entitled to refund.

Analysis: The refund had already been sanctioned by the Assistant Collector after considering the protest letter and the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 80/80. The record did not show that the protest letter was filed for any purpose other than in relation to payment of duty, and it was treated as a valid letter of protest. On the question of endorsement in the RT 12 returns and gate passes, the Department did not produce the relevant records despite direction, and the assessee had not been put on notice before an adverse finding was recorded. In these circumstances, an adverse inference was drawn in favour of the assessee and it was held that the requirements of Rule 233B stood satisfied. The time-bar reasoning in the Collector's order did not displace these findings, and remand was considered unnecessary because the old records were unavailable.

Conclusion: The refund was held to be admissible and the assessee's appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---