9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Order allowing the appeal correct in law? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in granting refund when the claim for refund in terms of Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976 as amended was filed after expiry of the stipulated time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty, as contemplated under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944? 3. Whether the Tribunal having been constituted under the Act was correct in law in granting refund otherwise than in accordance with express provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? 4. Did the Tribunal err in allowing the appeal following the decision of the Special Bench D reported in 1983 E.L.T. 2426 (CEGAT), without considering the case on merits, and when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessee had manufacturing units located in different jurisdications - with necessary details of their base period and base period clearances. The instructions further stated that the assessee s refund claim for incentive rebate would be sanctioned only after the Assistant Collector had approved the base period and base period clearances in respect of the concerned assessees. The respondents claim for refund was based on the ground that they had filed the claim within 6 months from the date of intimation to them of the base period and base period clearances determined by the Co-ordinating Assistant Collector without which information they could not file a refund claim. The Assistant Collector relying on Rule 11 of the Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. Taking questions Nos. 4 and 5 together it is found that the decision of the Special Bench D of the Tribunal dated 2D.12.B3 in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 467(CEGAT) referred to by the Applicant now was not cited during the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal and hence not dealt with in the order. It is therefore not possible to make any reference on these questions at this stage. The issue regarding the binding nature of a decision of a Three Member Bench of the Tribunal on other Benches consisting of smaller number of members all having concomittant jurisdiction stands already referred to the High Court of Judicature at Madras in this Tribunal s Reference G/Ref/-69/85 (MAS) in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madurai v. S. Raman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
