9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer, for excess duty paid between the period 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977, applied for refund of duty on 24-6-1978. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division P , Bombay by order dated 21-7-1979 rejected the claim as barred by limitation. In appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by Order No. V-2( 14)2026/79/644, dated 19-1-1983 held that at the material time old Rule 11 rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard for the appellant - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Smt. Chander submitted that claim for refund for the excess duty paid between 15-7-1977 to 3-8-1977 was presented on 24-6-1978 i.e beyond six months limitation prescribed under Rule 11 amended with effect from 6-8-1977. Therefore, the respondents claim should be rejected as barred by limitation. The impugned order should be set aside a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come into force. The said right to claim refund is a vested right which has accrued to the petitioner prior to new Rule 11 or at any rate is an existing right. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a vested right or even an existing right, including a right of action is not affected or allowed or taken away by the enactment expressly or by necessary implication. It is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
