https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43262 A rebate claim sent within the prescribed period by post was not defeated by the department's alleged non-receipt, because a properly posted letter carries a presumption of delivery unless rebutted by reliable evidence; mere office records were insufficient to displace that presumption. The Court also accepted the explanation for approaching writ jurisdiction after delay, and held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar relief where the levy was treated as unauthorized and the refund claim had been rejected on a technical ground. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the rebate amount was directed. en-us Mon, 14 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:34:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43262 A rebate claim sent within the prescribed period by post was not defeated by the department's alleged non-receipt, because a properly posted letter carries a presumption of delivery unless rebutted by reliable evidence; mere office records were insufficient to displace that presumption. The Court also accepted the explanation for approaching writ jurisdiction after delay, and held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar relief where the levy was treated as unauthorized and the refund claim had been rejected on a technical ground. The impugned orders were quashed and refund of the rebate amount was directed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43262