9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. HN-334/TH-103/86, dated 23-9-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original bearing No. V(17) 18-740847, dated 14-1-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division I, Thane, rejecting a portion of the refund claim as being hit by limitation. 2. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n time and has been wrongly rejected by the department. 4. Shri K.M. Mondal, the SDR for the Department, however, submitted that reading the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the relevant provision would be Clause (e) and the relevant date for the purpose would be the date of payment of duty and that here the entries in the P.L. Account were made on the very same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the relevant date for the purpose of refund the dale of actual payment of duty is the date and not the date on which the RT-3 2 returns were actually approved. He submitted that under these circumstances, there is absolutely nojustifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below. 5. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the only point that arises for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of Chapter VIIA of the Rules are statutorily deemed to be provisional, and hence the provisions of Section 11B may not stand attracted unless and until RT-12 returns are finalised. It has now been the settled law that the provisions incorporated in the rule are always subject to the provisions in the statute and they cannot override the statute. For claiming refund, the only provision i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
