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 a protest letter addressed to the Collector could be treated as a valid letter of protest under Rule 233B so as to keep the refund claim within time, and whether the refund claim was subject to the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B.
Analysis: For the relevant period, the identification of the proper officer had to be gathered from Rule 2(xi) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the rule-wise clarification relied upon by the Department was introduced only later. On that footing, the Collector within whose jurisdiction the assessee fell was a proper officer for receiving the protest. The letter dated 29-9-1986 was therefore treated as a valid protest from that date, and the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred. The separate observation on unjust enrichment only noted the governing requirement under Section 11B and left the factual proof to the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner.
Conclusion: The protest was valid and the refund claim was within time; the Revenue's appeal failed. The observation on unjust enrichment did not displace that result.
Ratio Decidendi: For a pre-clarification period, a protest under Rule 233B is valid if made to an officer who is a proper officer under the then-applicable definition of jurisdiction, and such protest can protect a refund claim from limitation.