Date of receipt proved by office stamp and handwritten date, not by inward register entry, securing refund entitlement.

The official stamp and handwritten date on a protest letter were accepted as proof of receipt on the earlier date, even though the inward receipt register recorded it later. The register entry was held not conclusive where there was no uniform acknowledgment practice and the document itself showed contemporaneous receipt. On that basis, the clearance was treated as protested in time, and the assessee was entitled to refund of the disputed amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the protest letter dated 21-6-1996 was received by the office of the Assistant Commissioner on that date so as to make the duty-paid clearances eligible for refund of the disputed amount.

Analysis: The letter bore the office stamp of the Assistant Commissioner and the date 21-6-1996 was written on it by hand. The mere fact that the letter was entered in the receipt register on 25-6-1996 was held not to be conclusive of the actual date of receipt. In the absence of any uniform practice of acknowledgment, the stamp and date on the protest letter were accepted as sufficient evidence that it had been received on 21-6-1996.

Conclusion: The protest letter was treated as received on 21-6-1996 and the assessee was held entitled to refund of the disputed sum.

Ratio Decidendi: The date of entry in the inward receipt register is not conclusive of the date of receipt where the document itself bears an official stamp and contemporaneous date showing earlier delivery.

---