https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82833 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. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:15:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82833 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82833