1990 (2) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal had been incorrectly allowed by the Collector (Appeals). 3. Learned Counsel stated that the respondents are engaged in the work of balancing/testing instruments. They were not engaged in any manufacturing activity or job work and were not required to be subjected to central excise control and were not liable to pay any duty. 4. The Asstt. Collector accepted that they were not liable to pay duty on testing and balancing activities undertaken by them. Hence, he also allowed the refund of the some of the amount erroneously paid as duty but rejected the rest of the amount (now in question) on the ground of time bar. A point was made out by the Asstt. Collector that the appellants had not filed their protest in terms of Rule 23....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e submissions of the Learned Counsel have strong force. We agree that the provisions of Rule 233(b) are only directory in character. We also note that in this case the learned Collector (Appeals) has observed inter alia that "I find from the facts of the cases that the appellants had filed a protest letter on 2-7-1979 which was accepted by the Assistant Collector on the basis of which she allowed some of the refund claim in the impugned order." This shows that the learned Counsel's submissions that they had lodged a protest was correct. It also shows that this protest had been lodged before inception of Rule 233(b) and was in force at the relevant time. Further it had been even subsequently accepted and formed the basis of Asstt. Collector'....