Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (5) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uring the period 1976-77 and 1977-78 the appellants paid the full amount of duty on the product manufactured by them without availing the benefit of Notification No, 198/76, dated 16th June, 1976 which contemplated exemption of duty to the extent of 25% basic excise duty payable under certain conditions. As per the contention of the appellants the benefit conferred by the Notification 198/76-C.E., could not have been enjoyed until and unless the Base Clearance was fixed by the Coordinating Assistant Collector. It was only on 12-1-1979 that the Base Clearance was fixed and the appellants came to know that they were entitled to the refund of the duty in view of the Notification 198/76, dated 16th June, 1976. They accordingly filed two refund .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otification No. 198/76, dated 16th June, 1976 could not be enjoyed until and unless the Base Clearance was fixed by the Coordinating Assistant Collector. The Base Clearance was fixed by the Coordinating Assistant Collector only on 12-1-1979 and they filed the refund claim within six months from that date. 7. They also mentioned that the total amount of claim should be Rs. 3,17,042.00 instead of Rs. 2,78,276 for the year 1977-78 and, therefore, requested for amendment of the claim accordingly. They have also mentioned in reply, dated 14th March, 1980 (at page 25 of the Paper Book) that while claiming refund by omission they forgot to include the amount of special excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,395 and that this may also be allowed to them .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clearances by the Coordinating Assistant Collector on 12-1-1979 for both the cases. 9. Aggrieved by the said order of the authority below, appeal was filed before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta who by his order in appeal No. 113/WB/82, dated 29-4-1982 rejected the appeal by observing as under : ..... supplementary claims for the year 1976-77 and 1977-78 were indicated for the first time in their letters of 11-3-1980 and 14-3-1980. Their supplementary claims for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 are clearly time barred under the then existing Rule 11 read with Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 since the supplementary claims were indicated for the first time in their letters dated 11-3-1980 and 14-3-1980 which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... already filed claim. If it is an amendment in the originally filed claim then this would be within time as the authorities below have held the original claim within time and this fact has not been challenged before us; otherwise it would be barred by limitation. In this respect we observe that it is only an amendment in the original claim and not a fresh claim. It was on account of wrong calculation of the duty amount sought to be refunded which necessitated the amendment in the amount mentioned in the original claims. The cause for refund remained the same. It is the duty of the department to calculate the exact amount refundable to an assessee and not to believe the figures given by the assessee in the refund application. If the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ory began by writing a letter No. FM/Sales/1/4656, dated 15-11-1956 that it would avail the benefit of the exemption notification viz. 198/76-CE. The base clearance was exceeded on 31-12-1976 for the first time. It is clear that the factory became entitled to the concession from that date. Unfortunately, the base clearance was not fixed till the beginning of 1979, and for this the assessee is not at fault, if there is at all a fault. Having notified its desire to avail 198/76-CE in November, 1976, all duties thereafter which were paid on clearances that exceeded the base clearance were duties subject to concessional calculation. The party served notice that it ought to get back whatever money it paid which might qualify in the concessional .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates