9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the free sale sugar subsequently cleared by them (with reference to which also the claim had been earlier preferred and allowed) the duty paid by them at the time of clearance was less than the amount for which rebate had been allowed earlier, and hence the differential amount was to be repaid by them. Subsequently, the said notice was cancelled by issue of a fresh Notice dated 26.11.1979, the purport of this second notice also being to call upon them to show cause why the amount ought not to be recovered from them. On receipt of their reply and after adjudication, the Assistant Collector passed an order confirming the demand. On their appeal the said order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under his Order dated nil. This appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion it would only be the period of limitation prescribed under the general law (evidently the Limitation Act) that should be held to govern the present claim. and if so, period of six months prescribed under the, Central Excises and Salt Act was not relevant. 6. In his submission before us Shri Sachar did not advance any argument regarding the alternative ground. His submissions were only with reference to period of limitation mentioned in Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act and to contend that with reference to the said provision itself, the demand was within time. We also note that in the case of Milles India Ltd. [1985 ECR 289 S.C. =1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court had upheld the finding of this Tribunal that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Limited [1986 (23) E.L.T. 144], the ratio of the said decisions being followed in a number of later decisions also such as Triveni Engineering Works Limited [1986 (26) E.L.T. 583] and Order No. 808/87 dated 9.10.1987 in the case of Doaba Sugar Mills. It had been pointed in the said decisions that the so called rebate granted under notifications such as Notification No. 108/78 were really in the nature of refunds only and there was nothing like provisional refund. It was also pointed out that there is no provision for any advance deposit or credit in terms of the notification. It was therefore further held that if the Department was of the view that it was not refund but only advance credit the result would be that provisions of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh refund had been granted on a particular date it would be deemed to be erroneously refunded on a subsequent date, the said date being the date of actual clearance. The Department need not have grantee the rebate or refund before the actual clearances. If the Department, for whatever reasons, chose to grant the amount without waiting for the actual clearances, that would not postpone the date of refund to the date of the actual clearance. Credit having been taken on 8.10.1978, that would be the relevant date under Section 11A. Since, admittedly, demand was issued more than six months after the said relevant date, the Collector (Appeals) was correct in holding that the demand was barred by time. 9. Shri Kohli further pointed out that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
