1996 (5) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.K. Desai, Member (J)]. -  This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. M-1246-1251/BD-547-557/86, dated 5-5-1987, confirming the Order-in-Original No. 30/67 refund. The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 12,11,585.87p. on 2-1-1985 for the duty paid on LDPE Bags for a period on 1-4-1982 to 20-7-1984. They pleaded that they were not hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appeal. 2. Shri M.M. Shah the ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that the letter of protest was already filed on 1-7-1982 and all those documents have been affixed with the stamp of duty having been paid under protest and have thus, complied with all the requirements of Rule 233B of the Rules. As to the unjust enrichment, he has pleaded that the goods have been supplied only to I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the letter of protest, they have missed to affix the stamp of payment under protest, that could be overlooked, as has been held by series of Judicial Pronouncement to the effect that minor procedural lapses ought not be considered, when the basic requirement of filing the letter of protest is done. This is not the case here and as such the rejection of refund claim as barred by limitation, is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ichment. In cases where the burden of duty has already been passed over to the customers, and it [is] not possible for the assessee to confer the benefit of refund to those customers, then he has to direct credit of the said amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 6. With the observations as above and in view of the finding that the demand is not hit by period of limitation, by allowing the A....