9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari, Member (J)]. - In respect of duty paid on 8-3-1979 the respondents Girdharilal Kanchhedilal Bidi Manufacturers preferred a refund claim in respect of set off available to them amounting to Rs. 1,405.40 paise. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the same had been received in his office on 15-9-1979, more than six months after the date of the payment of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records. 3. The refund claim, addressed to the Assistant Collector, had been routed by the respondents through the Inspector of Central Excise and, from the photostat copy of the refund claim, we find that these have been received in the office of the Superintendent on 14-8-1979. The date of payment of duty being 8-3-1979 the refund claim had been received in the office of the Inspector within s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nspite of the necessary information being called for from the Collectorate she has received no reply and is therefore unable to clarify the position. 5. As already stated the refund claim (photo-stat copy of which has been furnished by the department) appears to have been scrutinised by the Inspector on receipt of the same in his office and then submitted to the Assistant Collector with various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Since in the present instance, the said date was within six months from the date of the payment of duty, the rejection thereof by the Assistant Collector as barred by time was incorrect. 6. As earlier mentioned the Appellate Collector had allowed the appeal on the ground that the claim was not governed by the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules but by the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
