9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m arose under exemption Notification No. 198/76-Central Excises dated 16-6-1976 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production). 2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter. We observe that the appellants base clearances had been approved by the Assistant Collector on 29-4-1977. They crossed the base figure on 25-2-1978. Therefore, from this date onwards, they were entitled to pay duty on their clearances at the concessional rate but they went on paying it at the normal higher rate. They say that they did it because of the prevailing practice but are unable to substantiate this alleged practice. Be that as it may, the law gave them another remedy under Rule .11 to claim refund of the duty paid in exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their claim on two further grounds :- (1) There was no error on their part; as such Rule 11 did not apply. (2) It had been held by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court that the State was not entitled to retain any monies not due to it. The first ground has already been answered by the Appellate Collector. No doubt, prior to 6-8-1977, Rule 11 concerned itself with those claims for refund which had arisen as a result of inadvertence, error or misconstruction. But the rule was amended on 6-8-1977 to say : (I) Any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain inhibitions of the old rule. We find nothing in the revised rule by which it could be said that it did not cover the appellants case. We, therefore, see no merit in the department s plea that the appellants should have to go in for a civil suit even for that portion of the refund claim which was within the time limit of Rule 11. Incidentally, we observe that the Appellate Collector too came to the same conclusion and his order (insofar as it allowed the claim for the period from 27-3-1978 to 31-3-1978) has not been challenged by the department by way of revision or appeal. 6. Summing up, we allow the claim for the period from 14-3-1978 to 26-3-1978. We clarify that as a result of our order and the earlier order of the Appellate Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
