TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order dated 19-6-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The brief facts are that the appellants herein filed two refund claims for the period 1-4-1989 to 21-12-1989 and 1-4-1990 to 4-12-1990. Both of which were received in the jurisdictional Assistant Collector's office on 18-6-1991. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....producing copy of protest letter which is a requirement for the purpose under Rule 233(B) of CESA. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner held that the claims were time barred and rejected them. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. We have heared Shri Harbans Singh, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Jangir Singh, ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....test will be a fact at variance with Rule 233B it can be reasonably held that there has been substantial compliance therewith. In this context, the case law cited before us by the ld. counsel would come to their aid. These are Tribunal's decision on the case of Mahalaxmi Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 352 (Tribunal) = 1995 (11) RLT 118. In that case the Tribunal ha....