9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the period 30-8-1976 to 15-6-1977 and paid duty @ 10%. However, the appellants preferred their refund claim for Rs. 1,06,078.95 on 4-8-1980 on the grounds that woollen carpet processed yarn manufactured and cleared by them was charged to Central Excise duty @ 10% Ad valorem on Tariff value of Rs. 37.50, whereas their product was assessable on Tariff value of Rs. 30/- in view of Notification No. 235/76 dated 30-8-1976, as the manufacture scoured yarn which was obtained by mammal process of washing the noncoused yarn to free the yarn from greasy element and the said yarn was chargeable to duty at the rate of Rs. 30/- per kg., and further that the duty paid by them was under protest in view of their letter dated 11-10-1976. It appears tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheet, learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the refund claim of the appellants was allowed by the Assistant Collector vide his Order dated 24-1-1984 on merits and also on limitation in view of their protest letter dated 11-10-1976 and on appeal the Collector (Appeals) vide his impugned order set aside the order of the Assistant Collector granting the refund not on merits but on the point of limitation holding that the classification list filed by the respondent was approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ajmer on 1-3-1977 and therefore, in view of this approval of the classification list protest letter dated 11-10-1976 lost its validity. This finding according to the learned counsel was erroneous in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infact paid under protest by stamping all the gate passes as Duty paid under protest , the time limit prescribed under erstwhile Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not applicable under the saving clause of the said Rule. To buttress his submission he cited the case of The Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur -1986 (26) E.L.T. 553 (Tri.) = 1986 (7) ECR 352 and Order No. 158/85-C dated 20-2-1985 passed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sree Radhakrishna Vegetable Oil Products Company, Kalluru v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. In the case of The Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Guntur, supra, the classification list was filed for approval including the cost of packing charges and on the next da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws - I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions made by the respondents. I find that the classification list filed by the respondents was approved by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Ajmer on 1-3-1977. In view of the approval, the classification became final and the protest letter dated 11-10-1976 lost its validity as the respondents did not prefer an appeal against the Assistant Collector s order, or file a refund claim within the stipulated time limit. It is certainly not open to the assessee to reopen assessments of a later time after the expiry of legally fixed time limits. In this instant case the refund claim was preferred after a lapse of four years without any justification. The decision of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
