1992 (6) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng for the appellant, submitted that the appellant filed a provisional price list claiming abatement of 2.4% on each count in regard to transport and insurance charges and then again filed final price list claiming abatement of 2.73% in respect of transport and 3.05% in respect of insurance charges and claimed refund of the excess amount paid in a sum of Rs. 73,581.81 for the year 1984-85 and Rs. 1,29,310.82 for the year 1985-86. The Assistant Collector considered the appellant's refund application and issued two cheques of 3-2-1988 granting a refund in a sum of Rs. 56,279.19 for the year 1984-85 and Rs. 99,431.22 for the year 1985-86. Since there was no communication or reasoning alongwith the cheques issued on 3-2-1988 granting the afores....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ector on 23-2-1988 explaining why the entire refund had not been granted. Therefore, in the above factual circumstances, we are of the view that it is only the letter dated 23-2-1988 that would constitute the legal basis for the appellant to prefer an appeal as an appeal cannot otherwise be preferred unless there is a speaking order. The communication or order dated 23-2-1988 is only a speaking order explaining why the entire refund had not been granted and this will be the cause of action to the appellant to prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority. In this view of the matter we hold that the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the lower appellate authority as time barred is not correct and in this view the impugned ord....