9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was allowed to them. Therefore, there was an excess rebate as pointed out above availed of by the appellants. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 6-11-1979 as to why they should not be required to pay back the aforesaid amount of excess rebate. In defence, the appellants contended that the demand was time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules because it was beyond six months since the credit of the amount was taken on 25-11-1978 whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 6-11-1979. In his adjudication order, the Assistant Collector held that this was a case of erroneous credit/adjustment which actually gave rise to the Government to ask for refund and that as such the case was not covered under Rule 10 and hence, in the abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er that section it cannot at the same time say that it is not bound by the time limit laid down in that section. Arguing for the Department, the learned SDR Shri Rakesh Bhatia pointed out that exemption allowed under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules is necessarily restricted to the amount of duty payable under such rules and can never go beyond that and if a rebate higher than the duty is granted, it will be a subsidy by the Government to the assessee and there are no provisions or authority for the grant of such subsidy. The demand is also not hit by time-bar because it is not given in cash but the factory was permitted to take credit of such amount in their Personal Ledger Account (PLA). 2. The submission of the learned Counsel and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector himself, after issuing the Show Cause Notice under Rule 10, had observed in the adjudication order that the case was not covered by Rule 10 and had to be dealt with under the General Law of Limitation wherein the demand was not time-barred. As has been made clear in the Tribunal s decision cited above, if the excess payment has to be recovered under the General Law of Limitation, it can be done only by filing a suit, and in any case, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) will not be correct in law under the Central Excise Rules. As has been held by the Tribunal, in the case of Miles India Limited v. The Assistant Collector of Customs which had been upheld by the Supreme Court (1985 ECR 289), the quasi judicial authorities ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
