9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.C. Mandal, Member (J)]. - These two appeals relate to the common issue involving excess production incentive granted under exemption Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-76. The same are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. 2. In both these cases, the claims for refund of duty in terms of the above Notification were received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . M/s. Prag Vanaspati Products, Aligarh, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 337 (Tri.), vide Order No. 515/1986-C, dated 12-7-86 in Appeal No. ED/SB/84/44-C. He also reiterated the grounds of appeals. 4. The learned Advocate Shri P.G. Gokhale relied on the decisions reported in 1983 (l4-E.L.T.-2426 (CEGAT)-Neelamalai Tea/Coffee Estates and Industries Ltd., Nilgiris v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and 1985 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. So, the time limit of six months would apply. 5. We have considered their arguments. Out of the two decisions relied upon by the J.D.R., the case of M/s. Prag Vanaspati Products is not relevant to the facts of the present cases. The present cases relates to the refund under the excess production incentive scheme whereas, in the other case the claim did not relate to this scheme. It was a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n exactly their excess clearances would start. Since the Assistant Collector took time in giving his approval and the appellants soon thereafter quantified the amount of concession admissible to them and filed a specific refund claim, their refund claim was well in time and it was not necessary for them to pay duty under protest. Accordingly, it was held, the refund claim was not barred by limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
