1998 (12) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Account by them on 13-5-1991. Along with the Appeal, the Department had also filed a condonation of delay application for condoning a delay of six days in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal. The Collector has stated that since the matter was a complicated one which had to be referred to the Principal Collector, there was delay in obtaining directions from the Principal Collector in the matter and hence the delay. After considering the explanation given for the delay, we condone the same and allow the COD Application. 2. As regards the merits of the case, Shri Sumit Das, ld. DR submits that the issue relates to the recrediting of certain amount suo motu by the respondents on 13-5-1991 despite the condition laid down in the Asstt.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o recredit the amount in their RG 23A Part II account. Since no such letter was forthcoming from the Asstt. Collector, the respondents had recredited the amount since their refund claim had already been sanctioned by the Asstt. Collector as per his letter of 9-8-1990. In view of their refund claim having already been sanctioned in their favour, the requirement, if any, of a formal letter from the Asstt. Collector again permitting them to recredit the amount was, if at all a mere formality and non-issue of any such letter would not amount to a bar to their recrediting the amount and therefore, the order of the Collector (Appeals) allowing the said recredit could not be assailed. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides....