COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. UNIK SPRINGS (I)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by Revenue arises out of Order -in -Appeal No. 394 -CE/DLH/91, dated 27 -3 -1991 of Collector (Appeals) New Delhi.

(2.) THE appellant Revenue seeks relief on the ground that Collector (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that letter of protest was delivered to Supdt. and not to Asstt. Collector who in terms of Trade Notice No. 34/CE/87 is Asstt. Collector for the purpose of Section 11B.

(3.) LEARNED DR submitted that the letter of protest ought to have been filed to Asstt. Collector and not to Supdt. and therefore Collector (Appeals) had erred in upholding Order of Asstt. Collector granting such refund which have been paid under protest which would not attract limitation period.