9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is enough that a refund of Rs. 114 450-40 was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector to M/s. Kirloskar on 17-10-1980, and his Collector issued a notice dated 15-9-1981 under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act to recover the money. By his order F. No. V68(30)47/TE/81/871, dated 25-10-1983, the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and ordered the assessees to repay the amount of Rs. 114 450-40 which had been erroneously refunded to them. 2. The Learned Counsel for M/s. Kirlosker Mr. Phadnis, advocate, argued that the notice of the Collector dated 15-9-1981 was time-barred since the refund order was passed on 17-10-1980, and they got the order and also received the cheque. If they thought the sum of money had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (21) E.L.T. 854; paragraph 9 from 1986 (26) E.L.T. 1057. He said that all recoveries must remain within statutory provisions. The party had not made the declaration as required by Notification 178/77. He then read paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Collector s order. He also read paragraph 6 of Order No. 519/86-B1, dated 18-8-1986 re: Heavy Engineering. An exemption notification must be followed strictly and all conditions met and he referred to 1983 ECR 1405D. He next read paragraph 6 from order No. 281/87-B1, dated 4-6-1987 re: Metal Pressing Industries. 6. The learned counsel for the licensee, however, replied that if the conditions had not been fulfilled the Assistant Collector would not have sanctioned the refund. 7. But we are no longer co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-10-1980 by the Assistant Collector, the time-limit of review under sub-section 4 of Section 35A was one year. In support of this conclusion he quotes 1982 E.L.T. 112 in which the Bombay High Court held that when Section 11 A was not in force at the relevant period the limitation of one year was applicable. But this decision cannot apply to this dispute because the High Court was discussing the time-limit under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The present recovery by the Collector is sought to be made under Section 35A. 10. The Court held that during the period Section 11 A was not in force there was no provision in force by reference to which the special period of limitation could be computed. The effect, consequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in appeal/revision under Section 35 or 35A. 14. The trouble before us is not an order under Section 35 or 35A by an appellate authority or revisional authority which needs to be reviewed, but an order by an original authority. The words time-limit specified in Section 11A" were applied by the High Court from the order under Section 35 or 35A, that is to say, the order of the first appellate or reversionary authority. We cannot apply it likewise because we do not have an order of an appellate authority; it is only an order of the Assistant Collector to refund a certain sum of money to the assessees. Therefore, the original meaning of time-limit specified under Section 11 A will operate; meaning, that the time-limit will operate from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
