1991 (9) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mt. Lipika Majumdar Roy Choudhury, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : R. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - All the three appeals are directed against the same order bearing No. AMP-555 to 557/B III-304 to 306/88, dated 10-10-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the appellants' appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants preferred three refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mption under Notification No. 25/84, they did not indicate before the Assistant Collector that the duty was paid under protest and hence the refund claims were rejected and in appeals the orders of the Assistant Collector were upheld by the Collector (Appeals) by a common order. The present appeals are against the aforesaid order. 3. During the hearing, none represented the appellants. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e lower authorities were justified in rejecting the claims as time barred. 5. After taking into account the submissions made in the appeal memos, we find the letter dated 31-12-1985 addressed to the Superintendent and filed before the Range Office was received by the Inspector on the same day. The appellants in the said letter have indicated that they are enclosing the revised classification li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en by the Ld. SDR that it has not been filed before the proper officer, namely the Asstt. Collector. It is not disputed before us that the revised classification list was filed and it was approved effective from 8-1-1986 by the Asstt. Collector. Viewed in this context of the factual position, it is apparent that the Asstt. Collector was aware of their claim for exemption under Notification No. 25/....