9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 227 228/BR/81, dated 31.8.81, is the correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta granting respondents applications dated 1-11-1978 and 8-5-1979 for refund in terms of relief in excise duty as an incentive to higher production granted under Notification 198/76, dated 16-5-1976. 2. Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-5-1976 granted 25% relief in central excise duty as an incentive to higher production subject to fulfilment of conditions stipulated therein. Barauni Unit of the respondent was earlier a constituent unit of Fertilizer Corporation of India up to 31.3.78 but on reorganization of Fertilizer Corporation of India, the Unit became a constituent of the newly formed Hindustan Fertilizer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was Rs. 7,81,806.69. By another application dated 8.5.79 the respondents filed another similar refund claim for the period 31.1.78 to 31.3.78 in respect of fertilizer cleared on payment of normal duty relying on the abovesaid notification. The Asst. Collector of Central Excise Division, Patna by orders dated 15-1-1980 and 14-1-1980 after following the usual procedure rejected these claims as time barred having been presented beyond six months limitation stipulated in Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Aggrieved with the decision the appellant filed appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta by Order-in-Appeal Nos. 227 228/BR/81, dated 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of issue of orders by the Coordinating Assistant Collector determining the date from which the clearance had exceeded the base clearance. Limitation of time for making claim for refund should be counted from the date of issue of relevant orders by the Coordinating Assistant Collector determining the requirements set out above. This position had been accepted by the Govt. of India. Reliance was also placed on another order dated 26.2.81 passed by the same Appellate Collector. On these grounds they prayed for dropping the notice. In the meanwhile the Tribunal had been set up and the review notice was transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of an appeal presented before it. To comply with the practice and procedure followed in the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same notification relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in Universal drinks Private Limited v. Union of India [1984, (18) E.L.T. 208] (Bombay) it was, inter alia, held that claims for refund of duty made before 6.8.77 would be governed by the provisions of Rule 11 as it stood prior to its amendment on 6.8.77 even if refund was lodged after 6.8.77. Prior to 6.8.77 Rule 11 read with Rule 1733, which would be applicable also in the case of the respondent, provided for a limitation of one year making claim for refund of duty. In. Neelamali Tea (Coffee) Estates Industries Ltd. Nilgiris v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (1983 E.L.T. 2426 (CEGAT) which was distinguished in Collector of Central Excise v. Steel Authority of India o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
