Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Carrier Aircon Ltd. vs Cce, New Delhi on 7 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(131)ELT55(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
Jyoti Balasundram
1. The appellants herein were clearing air conditioners free of duty from their factory to 100% EOUs against CT.3 Certificates procured by the EOUs in terms of Notification 1/95-CE dt.4.1.95. In the month of June'96, they were informed that the benefit of duty free clearances under CT 3 Certificates could not be availed of by them as air conditioners were not eligible for the benefit thereunder. They started paying duty under protest after delivery of protest letter dt.21.6.96. Thereafter they pursued the matter with the Central Board of Excise & Customs and Board issued a clarification that the benefit of Notification was available to air conditioners also. Pursuant to such clarification dt.17.1.97, the appellants filed a claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on 17.2.97 for refund of Rs.27,44,059/- having the duty paid by them under protest. The Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned refund of Rs.25,46,639/- but rejected refund of Rs.1,97,400/- for the reason, that although the protest letter was dt.21.6.96, it was receipted in the letter receipt register only on 25.6.96 and hence refund claim for clearances between 21.6.96 and 24.6.96 was not admissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the letter of protest dt.21.6.96 bore only the official seal and hand writtendate but no signature, and hence was not conclusive evidence of delivery of the letter of protest on 21.6.96 to the office of the Asstt. Commissioner. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard Shri R.Krishnan, Ld. Counsel and Shri M.P. Singh, Ld. DR.
3. We have seen the letter in dispute. It bears the stamp of the office of the Asstt. Commissioner and the date 21.6.96 is written by hand. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has placed before us letters addressed to various authorities such as the CBEC, Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon, Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, showing different practice of acknowledgement of letters. Some of these letters bear the official stamp alongwith hand written date and signature of the person receiving the letter; some letters bear only the official seal and hand written date, some other letter bears only the signature of the person receiving it alongwith the date "but no seal". This shows that there is no uniformity in the practice of acknowledgement. The authorities below have only gone by the date of entry in the letter receipt register to hold that the letter was received only on 25.6.96. However, we agree with the appellants that the date of entry in the receipt register is not to be taken as the date of receipt of the letter. Since the letter clearly shows the date as 21.6.96, we see force in the assessee's submission that the protest letter was received in the office of the Asstt. Commissioner on 21.6.96. Hence, they are eligible to the refund of Rs.1,97,400/-. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.