Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund claims could be rejected for want of a formal protest letter when the duty had been shown as paid under protest in the classification list, gate passes and RT 12 returns, and whether the claims were admissible on substantial compliance with the protest requirement.
Analysis: The refund claims were founded on a favourable appellate order. The record showed endorsements in the classification list, gate passes and RT 12 returns indicating payment under protest during the relevant period. In that situation, the absence of a separate formal protest letter was treated as a variance from Rule 233B, but not as a fatal defect. The payment was held to be covered by substantial compliance with the protest requirement, and the refund could not be denied merely because the duty was not backed by a formal protest letter. Refund was also required to be examined in light of the amended Section 11B.
Conclusion: Rejection of the refund claims was not sustainable and the refund was directed to be granted after verification of the protest endorsements and compliance with Section 11B.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has consistently indicated payment of duty under protest through contemporaneous records, substantial compliance with the protest requirement is sufficient and refund cannot be denied solely for absence of a separate formal protest letter.