9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 1944, as well as order existed under Trade Notice No. 77/79, dated 25-4-1979 keeping in view the provision of the than existing rule." It would be observed from the above by way of incidental remarks that no question has been framed at all. Possibly the Collector wants to state, as was stated by the learned S.D.R.. during the course of hearing, that a question of law arises whether a refund claim is within time or not in terms of erstwhile Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is to be computed from the date of receipt of such claim in the office of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise or from the date of receipt of such claim by a Range Officer/Sector Officer subordinate to such Assistant Collector. We proceed now to exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so issued by the Collector of Central Excise stating that "refund claims addressed to the Assistant Collector but lodged with the jurisdictional Sector Officer or Range Officer would be deemed to have been lodged with the Assistant Collector when accepted by the Sector Officer or Range Officer on behalf of the Assistant Collector for the purpose of computing the time limit of six months under Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act. (Trade Notice 206/80 of 1980 has not been made available by the applicant nor by the S.D.R.. but the above extracts have been taken from last para at page 341 of the Report at 1987 (27) E.L.T. 337 (Tribunal) in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Z relied upon by the applicant). This trade not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer who accepted them on behalf of the Assistant Collector in the year 1977. 5. We observe that the present case relates to a refund claim filed in 1979. We further observe that the finding of the Tribunal in the case of Prag Vanaspati Ltd. regarding absence of established practice is based upon a written letter of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. No such evidence has been produced by the department in the instant case. On the contrary, the inference of practice has been based by the Tribunal in the impugned order on trade notice 206/80. According to the extracts of the said trade notice quoted above, it appears that the practice of acceptance of refund claims by the jurisdictional Sector Officer or Range Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector or from the date of receipt of such claim by the Assistant Collector himself. Apart from the question of established practice, it is also to be observed that the Collector has exercised his statutory jurisdiction in issuing supplementary instructions under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and such instructions being beneficial to the assessees are enforceable by the trade. This has been so ruled by the High Court of Gujarat in 1977 E.L.T. J67 (Guj.) in the case of Navgujrat Paper Industries relying upon Supreme Court's observation in U.O.I., and others v. M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies (AIR 1968 SC 718). Such circulars make for just and fair administration of the law inasmuch as they reduce the rigours of technicalities of proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
