9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handloom cess paid by the respondents for the period upto 5-8-1977. The amount involved is Rs. 2,061.32 ps. It has been contended in the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, that since the cause for refund arose on 13-10^-1978 through the issue of the Govt. of India s Notification No. SO 3108, dated 13-10-1978 the claim for refund filed by the Respondents on 10-7-1979 was received after a period of six months from the date of the Govt. of Indians Notification and hence it was correctly rejected as time barred. It has accordingly been prayed on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, that the order of the Appellate Collector should be set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division I, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period into two, namely, from January 1977 to 5-8-1977 and from 6-8-77 to December, 1978. The dividing line was the amendment to Rules 10 11 carried out on 6-8-77. Shri Senthivel contended that the Collector (Appeals) order to split up this period was not correct. The claim for refund had been filed on 10-7-79. Rule 11 in force on that day stipulated filing of the refund claim within six months from the date of payment of duty. The Cause for refund arose on the date of issue of the Notification on 13-10-78 when Rule 11 was in force. Rule 11 was applicable to the refund claim as on that day. The Collector (Appeals) held that general law of limitation would apply, prior to the issue of the date of Notification. This was a wrong finding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1977. Possibly the reason for the aforesaid instructions of the Board was that Rule 11 as it stood before its amendment on 6-8-1977 governed refund of duties paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction. Since in the present case the refund arose on account of retrospective effect having been given to the Government of India s Notification No. SO 3108 dated 13-10-1978 the Collector came to the aforesaid conclusion that the handloom cess paid prior to 6-8-1977 was not paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction. Hence he concluded that the refund of this amount was governed under the Limitation Act and directed its refund, as the claim was in time. The learned SDR has contended that this position has been changed with the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under old Rule 11. Therefore, in effect, there is no change in the order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division I, Ahmedabad. From this point of view, it is immaterial when the cause for refund arose. In such cases, the Government give directions for the refund of the duties suo motu. Perhaps such directions were not issued in the present instant and hence the refunds were not granted suo motu. This is perhaps the reason why the respondents urged that the refund should have been given without their having to file an application for the refund., Besides it is seen that under Section 3 of the Khadi and Other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953 (ACT No. 12 of 1953), which is the charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
