9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (J)]. - The issue involved in this appeal is whether the refund claim of the Respondent is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The Respondent Company, a small scale unit, manufactures refractory products falling under Tariff Item 68 CET. The Company was held to be entitled to exemption from p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the claim was filed on 27-12-1980 i.e. well within a period of six months from 3-11-1980, it had been filed in time. The Department has come up in appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals). 4. We have heard Shri S. Chakraborthy, learned DR for the appellant-Collector and Shri P.K. Modi, Managing Director of the respondent-Company. 5. Section 11B of the Central Excises Salt Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot from the end of the assessment year. In this case, the exemption is based upon annual turnover and, therefore, the Kerala High Court decision cited above will be applicable to hold that the respondent s claim is time-barred. 6. The representative of the respondent places reliance on the following decision to support his contention that the claim was filed within time :- (1) Khardah Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l fixation of base period and the base clearances by the Assistant Collector which determination was delayed. 8. In this case, the respondent company claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 89/79-C.E. on the basis of annual turnover. Hence the company should have filed its refund claim within 6 months from the date of payment of duty. However, the claim was filed only on 27-12-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
