9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 80/80-C.E. would include the value of goods produced without the aid of power in the other factory of the appellants, and since such value exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs, the limit prescribed in the notification, therefore appellants were not entitled to exemption under the said notification. Appellant s claim that the show cause notice by the department for recovery of refund was time barred, was also rejected. 2. We have heard Shri Satish B. Naik, Excise-in-Charge of the Company and Smt. Dolly Saxena, Senior Departmental Representative. 3. Shri Naik has filed a copy of written submissions on behalf of the appellants. Smt. Dolly Saxena briefly submitted that she reiterated the view taken in the order-in-appeal and has nothing fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore held that even where certain excisable goods are exempted from excise duty by virtue of notification issued by the Central Government, they do not cease to be excisable goods. In the light of the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Techno Chemical Industries, with which we wholly concur the claim of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 80/80-CE is rejected. 6. In their appeal, two other points have been made by the appellants. Although these are not included in the written submissions filed at the time of the hearing of the appeal, in fairness to the appellants, we would like to deal with both these points. Firstly, it is submitted that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise sanctioning the refund had no jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connection refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others - 1983 E.L.T. 1596 (S.C.). The Supreme Court, construing the words the date of refund , held that the date would be when the refund was actually taken and not the date when the order for refund was passed. Accordingly, the relevant date in this case would be the date when the refund was actually made by cheque and not when the orders were passed. Whether this date is the 12 Feb., 1982 as contended by the appellants or 15 Feb., 1982 as held in the order of Collector (Appeals), the show cause notice dated 9 Aug., 1982 would be within the statutory limit of six months. The submission that it is barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sham Sunder U. Nichani v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore -1985 (22) E. L.T. 751 that an assessment could be re-opened for any short levy resulting from inadvertence, error or misconstruction. This Tribunal, more recently, in the case of Fibre Foils (P) Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1988 (Vol. 16) E.C.C. T-95 = 1988 (36) E.L.T. 174 observed that the High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Sham Sunder U. Nichani v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore Another - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 751 (Kar.) had clearly held that a demand under Section 11 -A could be raised notwithstanding the fact that the classification earlier approved was sought to be reviewed by the said authority. Accordingly, the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
