9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (5) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udication at the hands of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who by his Order dated 297-1981 demanded a duty of Rs. 7,059.93 besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,0001-on the appellants. This order of the Deputy Collector was appealed against and consequent on the appeal being rejected by the appellate authority namely, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras by Order dated 13-11-1981, the appellants filed a revision application to the Government of India as per law and by order dated 30-5-1984 the revisional authorities set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for de novo consideration. Consequent on the order of renamed by the revisional authority, the Deputy Collector by Order dated 19-3-1985 dropped the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of limitation in terms of Section 11B(1) as incorrect. The learned consultant further urged that Section 11B(3) of the Act is intended to govern and cover situations where a person becomes entitled to any refund as a result of an order passed in appeal or revision under the Act. 3. Shri K.M. Vadivelu, the learned D.R. submitted that the original order namely, the order of the Deputy Collector, dated 19.3.1985 is an order in pursuance of the remand of the proceedings by the revisional authorities and such as order of the Deputy Collector cannot be construed to be an order in appeal or revision so as to come within the mischief of Section 11B of the Act. The learned D.R. further urged that the issue is squarely covered by Section 11B(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, the original authority, namely, the Deputy Collector passed an order of adjudication on 19-3-1985 dropping all further proceedings against the appellant. This order of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Madras is an order of adjudication and if a person becomes entitled to any amount by way of refund in pursuance of an order passed by an adjudicating authority in adjudication, the person concerned need not take out an application for refund in terms of Section 11B(1), extracted above, within a period of six months; in other words as is clearly stated in Section 11B(3), extracted above, if as a result of an order passed in appeal or revision under the Act refund of any duty of excise is due to any person, the Assistant Collector of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed before the competent revisional authority namely, the Government of India who remitted the issue for a de novo consideration and pursuant to such an order of remand the Deputy Collector passed an order of adjudication dropping all proceedings against the appellant. In such a context it cannot be contended by any stretch of imagination that as against the order of the Deputy Collector the appellant should have filed an application for refund before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of the period of six months in terms of Section 11B(1) of the Act. It should be noted in this context that any order passed by the authorities under Section 11B(1) of the Act is in exercise of a quasi-judicial power as an adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
