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

....[Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)].  - This is a departmental appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals). 2. Learned DR drew attention to the operative portion of the order of the Collector (Appeals) and stated that as all the formalities required by Rule 233(b) had not been duly followed the appeal had been incorrectly allowed by the Collector (Appeals). 3. Learned Counsel stat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It was, however, their contention that the protest was lodged by them vide their letter dated 2-7-1979 long before Rule 233(b) had come into force and since the protest had been continuing before the relevant date on which the said rule came into force, the new rule would not apply in their case. This was more so on the ground that in the facts of the case one of the main provisions of the said r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een held that the work undertaken by the appellants was not in the nature of manufacturing activity and did not attract duty. 8. We find that the 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Show Cause Notices in which it is mentioned that the appellants were clearing the goods under protest. 11. From this it is seen that the Collector (Appeals) has rightly accepted the plea of the respondents and as such the claim could not be treated as time barred on this ground. Further, it is seen from the operative portion of the order that while the Collector (Appeals) has not rejected the app....