9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falling under T.I. No. 68 and utilised in the manufacture of the finished goods. The appellants were under the impression that the permission of the Department was necessary for availing the benefit of the set-off. They submitted an application on 5-3-1979 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Anantapur requesting for such a permission. Since there was no reply, a reminder was sent on 11-5-1979. The Superintendent gave written permission to avail of set-off duty with effect from 17-5-1979. The Superintendent also directed the appellant to file a statement showing the quantity of the duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of the bulbs as per Notification No. 178/77 as amended by Notification No. 295/77-C.E., dated 28-9-1977. The ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent showing the quantity of inputs which was filed on 2-6-1979. The learned Consultant urged that the appellant had expressed even on 5-3-1979 by his letter, his intention to claim the benefit of the notification and hence refund should be ordered from that date. The rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the statements were furnished at a later date would be not justified as submission of the statement was a procedural formality. In respect of his contention, he relied on the ruling reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 135 (Tribunal) (Chemiequip Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Thane). The West Regional Bench held that the rules of procedure were intended to further justice and not to hamper justice. If the authorities were satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration and a certificate by the Chartered Accountant. She argued that the lower authorities were right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to refund at any rate prior to 17-5-1979 though the Department could have very well insisted that the refund could be only for the period after 2-6-1979 when the statement was actually received. She relied on 1978 E.L.T. (J 350) (M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas) in respect of interpretation of notification. 5. Notification No. 178/77-C.E. gives relief in respect of excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the finished products. The subsequent Notification No. 295/77 introduced a condition that the manufacturer should furnish a statement to the proper officer. The proforma of the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since he had not furnished the statement, he was called upon to furnish the statement in the proforma as in the said notification. This statement was furnished on 2-6-1979. As rightly contended by Mrs. Zutshi, the Department would have been well within their rights if they had allowed the refund only from 2-6-1979 when the statement was actually received by the Department. Of course, they have granted refund from 17-5-1979. On that ground, it cannot be said that the period has to be enlarged from 5-3-1979 when the appellant wrote his letter. On the facts of the case, it is manifest that the authorities below have rightly held that the appellant furnished the required information only on 2-6-1979 and that the appellant did not earn the righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
