https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72871 Departmental practice and trade instructions under Rule 233 were treated as relevant to refund limitation where a refund claim was lodged with a Range Officer or Sector Officer but addressed to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal noted that claims so accepted on behalf of the Assistant Collector were treated as valid for limitation purposes, and distinguished the Supreme Court authority relied on because it did not concern the mode of presenting a refund claim. On that basis, it held that no question of law fit for reference arose and rejected the reference application. en-us Tue, 14 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 May 2011 15:39:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72871 Departmental practice and trade instructions under Rule 233 were treated as relevant to refund limitation where a refund claim was lodged with a Range Officer or Sector Officer but addressed to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal noted that claims so accepted on behalf of the Assistant Collector were treated as valid for limitation purposes, and distinguished the Supreme Court authority relied on because it did not concern the mode of presenting a refund claim. On that basis, it held that no question of law fit for reference arose and rejected the reference application. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72871