2006 (6) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri B.L. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (for the Bench)]. -  The appellant, M/s. Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TNEB) had submitted refund claims to the Department for a total amount of duty of Rs. 28,29,718/- for the period from 1986 to March, 1994. Refund claim to the extent of Rs. 16,46,558/- was sanctioned by the original authority and the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the period from 19-11-1990 was allowed by the appellate authority, having found that such duty had been paid under protest in terms of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide assessee's letter received by the Superintendent of Central Excise on 19-11-1990. In the result, the assessee's appeal was only partly allowed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 2. In the present appeal, TNE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeals). 3. We have considered the submissions. In the cited final order, the Bench was remanding the case to the original authority for ascertaining whether duty had been paid under protest. Incidentally, it observed that procedural lapses should not come in the way of substantial justice, an observation made with reference to Rule 233B ibid. It is this part of the final order, which has....