9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. Rekhi, Member (T).]. - The appellants filed a refund claim on 1-12-78, some 20 months after the payment of duty. The Assistant Collector rejected it on merits as well as on the ground of time bar (of 6 months) under the erstwhile Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants received the Assistant Collector s order on 29-3-80. Under the then Section 35 of the Central Excises and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules by any Central Excise Office and from which no appeal lies . The appellants argued that once the time limit of three months for filing appeal before the Appellate Collector under Section 35 was over, no appeal lay against the Assistant Collector s order and they could, thereafter, file a revision direct to the Central Government. 3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal (1956 SCR 166 - M/.s. Mela Ram and Sons v. C.I.T. Punjab - Full Bench judgment of the Supreme Court) and it was only this order from which no further appeal lay and only a revision to the Central Government lay under Section 36. Neither the facts nor the law can be washed away just because the appellants chose to be non-vigilant and let the statutory time limit lapse. No revision lay to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
