9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both fall under T.I. 68 CET. As seen from the paper book filed by the appellants, the appellants addressed letter dated 17-10-1979 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gaya, wherein they give list of the goods manufactured by them and also raw material inputs required for the same and requested the Assistant Collector to grant them necessary permission for availing of facility under Rule 56A. Among the various items of inputs listed by them. Vanadium Sludge was one such item. All the items the appellants were manufacturing as indicated in the letter fell under Item 68. The appellants have filed a copy of a communication from the Central Excise, which does not appear to be from the Assistant Collector. In this letter the appellants w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the details of the claim. There is another letter submitted by them dated 19-2-1980 which bears the endorsement for receipt of the same by Central Excise authorities and under which refund claim of Rs. 33,808.72 for payment of duty, was made. The said claim was again sent through the Superintendent for the consideration of the Assistant Collector. As seen from the record it was filed by the appellants vide their letter dated 16-8-1981. The appellants were issued show cause notice as to why the claim should not be rejected as time-barred. The appellants narrated sequences of the events which led to the filing of refund claim by die appellants. The appellants refund claim was, however, rejected by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion limit during the current year. 3. We observe that the appellants had placed all the facts regarding their manufacture before the Central Excise authorities and repeatedly requested for permission for availing of facility under Rule 56A. The Collector (Appeals) had even held that they were eligible for consideration of the said facility. It is seen that the appellants wanted to avail of concession under 56A as they were repeatedly asking for the permission for availing the credit of the duty paid on the sludge. Unless the permission as required in terms of the conditions of Rule 56A was given by the concerned Assistant Collector the appellants could not have availed of the benefit of proforma credit available under Rule 56A. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
