9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajapalayam, dated 12-6-87 and rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of Rs. 22,807/-. The appellant is a manufacturer of millboard and filed a classification on 1-4-86 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 138/86, dated 1-3-86; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the benefit of Central Excise Notification 175/86 with effect from 1-4-86. The plea of the appellant was rejected by both the authorities; hence the appeal. 2. Shri G. Subramaniam, the learned Consultant for the appellant submits that when the appellant is indisputably entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and the fact that he did not choose to file a classification for the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for refund on that basis. This aspect of the matter in the impugned order has been very succinctly summed up by the learned Collector (Appeals), as extracted below: "In the present case, they have opted for classification under Notification 138/86 with effect from 1-4-86. That classification was correct, because the provisions of Notification 175/86 cannot be applied where an assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /86 is more beneficial to them, it cannot be said that duty paid under Notification 138/86 is wrong payment of duty or excess payment of duty. Therefore, there being no excess payment of duty, refund cannot be sanctioned, because Section 11B does not provide refund of duty which is correctly said." At this stage the learned Consultant submitted that Notification 260/86, dated 24-4-86 precluded on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
