9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard Shri S.R. Tripathi, Consultant for the appellants and Shri S.R. Kunte, Departmental Representative for the respondents. 2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad by order dated 29-12-1979 rejected the appellants, claim for refund to the extent it related to the period 27-10-1976 to 4-1-1977 as hit by limitation under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from payment of 25% of duty as also direction to file revised classification list in view of the notification. Subsequently, by letter dated 16-8-86, the Range Superintendent asked that the earlier approval communicated be kept in abeyance till finalisation of price index. On 7-12-1977, the appellants addressed to the Range Superintendent letter containing revised information in terms of orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustan Fertilizers Corporation reported in 1986(9) ECC T 153 and submitted that the appellants had staked their claim for the incentive scheme by filling a declaration on 12-7-1975 and the relevant period was before amendment of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as in the precedent. Therefore, the mere fact that the declaration was approved at a later date and actual refund claim lodged at a la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants declaration on 12-7-1976 might have been to some extent defective, could it not be said that by filing declaration on 12-7-1976, in view of the Tribunal decision supra, the appellants had staked their claim for the incentive scheme on 12-7-1976 itself, Shri Kunte had no particular submission to make. Further asked by the Bench if declaration filed on 12-7-1976 be held as staking claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
