https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203896 A protest letter addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B, so the refund claim could not be rejected merely because it was not addressed to the Assistant Collector. On the documentary objection, the refusal of refund for non-production of original duty-paying documents was not sustained; the matter required verification of supporting records such as certificates, audited balance sheets, bank scrolls and PLA proof, so the issue was remanded for fresh consideration after opportunity to produce the documents. The note states that one refund claim was granted and the other sent back for reconsideration. en-us Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203896 A protest letter addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B, so the refund claim could not be rejected merely because it was not addressed to the Assistant Collector. On the documentary objection, the refusal of refund for non-production of original duty-paying documents was not sustained; the matter required verification of supporting records such as certificates, audited balance sheets, bank scrolls and PLA proof, so the issue was remanded for fresh consideration after opportunity to produce the documents. The note states that one refund claim was granted and the other sent back for reconsideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203896