9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants were classified under T.I. 26AA(ia) instead of T.I. 26A(III) which were exempted from payment of duty. Refund claim amounting to Rs. 10,985.53 was sanctioned by the then Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Chandigarh and rest of the claim was rejected being barred by limitation vide his Order dated 23-8-1979. Against this Order of rejection of the refund claim in part the appellants went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, who vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 178-CE-CHG/82, dated 18.11.1982 held the claim within time and in view of his findings that the claim was within time he directed the Assistant Collector to examine the claim on merits and pass necessary orders. On remand it appears that the Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the refund claim for Rs. 10,985.83 out of the amount of Rs. 37,907.90 vide Order dated 23.8.1979 the Assistant Collector felt that due to wrong calculation an amount of Rs. 1518.57 was sanctioned in excess. Hence subsequently he raised a demand for Rs. 1518.58 and ultimately confirmed it vide his Order dated 2.2.1980 which was upheld on appeal by the Collector (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 433-CE/CHG/84, dated 12.7.1984 with the result that out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 10,985.53 an amount of Rs. 9,466.96 only stood paid to the appellants. All these facts are admitted to other parties and are not in challenge. I have thought it proper to mention all these facts to make the Order complete. 4. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1982 E.L.T. 67 (Bom.) - wherein it was held that the Collector of Customs (Preventive) cannot reconsider the question which has already been decided by the Revirsionary Authority. (3) Somasundaram Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 691 (Tribunal) - wherein it was held that where a refund claim was partly allowed by the Appellate Collector on the ground of limitation and such decision of the Appellate Collector was never reviewed by the competent authority it becomes final and therefore, cannot be challenged. (4) Kerala State Detergents and Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. 1987 (27) E.L.T. 312 (Tribunal) - wherein it was held that where the remand order for readjudication is restricted to a particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw that Order of the Appellate Authority is to be read as a whole and not in part. From a perusal of the said Order dated 18.11.1982 of the Collector (Appeals) it would appear that the only issue before him was as to whether the Assistant Collector was right in rejecting the part of the claim of the appellants as time-barred and the learned Collector after examining the facts and the case law cited by the appellants expressly recorded a finding that the claim has to be treated in time. And after holding so directed the Assistant Collector to examine the claim on merits and pass necessary orders but it is unfortunate that the Assistant Collector overlooked the said expressed findings recorded by the Collector (Appeals) in his Order dated 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
