9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-D, dated 21-11-1985, passed by this Tribunal, be referred to the Hon ble High Court :- i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal correct in holding that the period of limitation of six months for filing a refund claim under Rule 11 is to run from the date of receipt of the respondent s refund claim by the jurisdictional superintendent of Central Excise, when Rule 11 (as amended) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under which the refund claim was made, read, at the material time of the case, that such application for refund had to be made to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise ? ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal correct in holding that the refund claim of the respondent for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Collector, when as per Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, it is clearly laid down that the refund application may be made to Assistant Collector of Central Excise ? 2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of deciding this application and which are mentioned in the Order No. 406/85-D by this Tribunal are reproduced as below :- 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claim on the ground of time bar of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. Their claim arose under exemption notification No. 198/76-Central Excises, dated 16-6-1976 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production). 2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter. We observe that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .-281 (Tribunal) - Shri Ambica Khandsari Udyog v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. In as much as their claim was entertained by the said superintendent and after necessary verification at his end, he forwarded the claim to his next superior - the Assistant Collector, who was the sanctioning authority, we find the reliance well-taken. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that their claim for the period 14-3-1978 to 26-3-1978 was also within time." It would also be relevant to state here that this Tribunal while allowing the claim for the period from 14-3-1978 to 26-3-1978 rejected the claim of the respondent for the rest of the period being time-barred in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rule, 1944. 3. Before we proceed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Tribunal as this order does not lay down any general principle and the case was decided on the given facts of that case. On the point of clarity, it may be mentioned that since in that case the claim of the respondent was entertained by the jurisdictional Superintendent and after necessary verification at his end he forwarded the claim to his next superior, the Assistant Collector, who was the sanctioning authority, it was found that the claim was within time and for this purpose reliance was placed on the earlier Order No. A-96/85-NRB rendered in the case of Shri Ambica Khandsari Udyog v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, supra. The argument of the learned SDR that this Tribunal erred in relying upon its earlier order rendered in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
