9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the same is exempted from payment of duty in terms of Central Excise Notification 217/86, dated 2-4-1986. The respondent contended that though the benefit of this notification was not claimed in the classification list, the respondent, coming to know about the applicability of the notification to them, took out a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 before the expiry of the period of limitation of six months from the date of payment of duty. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the respondent herein had not claimed the exemption in terms of the aforesaid notification while filing the classification list and the lower appellate authority reversed the order of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Central Excise , reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 257. The learned consultant also relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Elson Machines Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (S.C.) = 1988 (19) ECR 449 (S.C.). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. It is not disputed by the Department that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the notification in question and that the refund was not granted on the ground the respondent herein did not make a specific claim of the said notification in the classification list filed. This argument of the learned D.R. cannot be acceded to. The ruling of the Special Bench in Delhi Chemicals case, comprising three learned M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the contention of the party that once a classification list is approved, the Excise authority was estopped from taking a different view. The Supreme Court held that there can be no estoppel against the law and the claim raised before us is a claim based on the legal effect of a provision of law and, therefore, this contention must be rejected . The Calcutta High Court has also in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others , reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 473 (Cal.), held that Section 11B of the Act has provided the substantive and the machinery provision for refund of any excess duty paid under Section 11B cannot be interpreted in such a way as to render it negatory and unworkable. In the present case, admittedly t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
