9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 5th March, 1986. The Collector (Appeals) had allowed the appeal filed by the party, which is not legal, considering that this is a matter concerning time limit. The department s appeal is against this order and the Collector (Appeals) has based his order on an incorrect appreciation of Section 11B in the matter of refunds and, therefore, the department s appeal may be allowed. 3. Replying to the arguments of the learned SDR Shri R.B. Sinha, learned Advocate pointed out that the stand of the Assistant Collector that the refund claim was filed only in March, 1985 is not correct. He submitted a written note stating the facts. A copy of this note was handed over to the learned SDR by him for his reaction. The learned Advocate stressed the fact that even if the Assistant Collector s stand that the first letter dated 19-11-1984 was held to be incomplete and as such returned with the direction to resubmit it with full details, their subsequent letter dated 1-12-1984 received by the department on 3-12-1984 could be considered to be an effective and complete compliance with the department s requirement since the enclosed form in Appendix-I under the caption Application for Ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) he allowed the same taking the correct view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The department s appeal against the order of the Collector, (Appeals) is untenable and should be rejected. 4. The learned SDR after perusal of the written note submitted by the learned Advocate during the hearing, reiterated his arguments that it is the letter dated 29-3-1985 filed by the company to the Assistant Collector of Customs Central Excise, Ranchi, which should be considered as the proper claim and on that basis the rejection of the claim is proper and legal and should be allowed to stand by setting aside the order of the Collector (Appeals). 5. I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides. I find that the original letter dated 19-11-1984 mentioned that the company was submitting their application in duplicate for a sum of Rs. 31,857.61. The letter went on to add that the claim is doe to non-acceptance of their bill for price escalation against supplies of Chain Conveyors. In case any further information was desired, they requested that they may be advised suitably. Enclosure of this letter is Appendix-I. It is seen that the invoice covering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon to obtain in writing from the customers that they had not paid any amount directly or indirectly against the escalation not accepted by them. The respondent company obtained a letter dated 16-2-1986 from their customer viz. Western Coalfields Ltd. certifying that they paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,564.95, on their escalation bills dated 30-6-1984. The Central Excise duty amount was accepted by them on the basis of certificate issued by the Inspector, Customs Central Excise, Section-V, Range-II, Ranchi, dated 2-5-1985 certifying that Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 31,857.61 was deducted in PLA on Bharat Westfalia Limited under Sl. No. 72, dated 30-6-1984, out of which the assessee has claimed refund of Rs. 18,292.66. The respondent Company enclosed a copy of this letter from Western Coalfields and further certified that apart from the amount stated in WCL s letter, they did not receive any amount towards excise duty directly or indirectly from them. The Assistant Collector finally passed his order dated 5th March, 1986. He held the view that the original letter of the company dated 19-11-1984 was in the nature of an information only as they did not enclose any cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted on 29-3-1985. He has held that this date viz. 29-3-1985 is hit by limitation as the duty had been paid on 30-6-1984. He has concluded that the claim was, therefore, liable for rejection. He has also referred to the valuation aspect in respect of which he had asked the company to obtain in writing from their customers that they had not paid any amount directly or indirectly against the escalation not accepted. He has observed that after the lapse of four months the company did only submit a certificate for payment of duty by their customers amounting to Rs. 13,564.95. He has observed that this certificate does not cover the point of query. 7. This order of the Assistant Collector had been conclusively set aside by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who gave due importance to the company s letter dated 19-11-1984 itself and held it to be the valid and legitimate refund claim. I am in hearty agreement with him. I would, however, like to record my specific findings on the various observations made by the Assistant Collector in his rejection order. It is wholly erroneous to hold that the refund claim lodged with the letter dated 19-11-1984 was based on presumption. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
