9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. M-213/PN-21/85 dated 19-4-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. V(27)18-155/R/82/7760 dated 23-9-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik rejecting the refund claim for Rs. 15,797.38. 2. Shri S.U. Jagesha, the ld. Consultant for the appellants, submitted that as per the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise requesting him to permit them to avail of the credit for the excess amount already paid in their RT-12 Returns. He submitted that the RT-12 Returns for the said period were finally assessed after two years, where the Supdt. disallowed their claim for the duty. They, therefore, filed the refund application dated 15-2-1982 which too was rejected as time barred. In his submission Sec. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification list to that effect. It could only be from the date of filing of the revised classification list that the benefit can be made available to them and that for a period prior to that, the claim made cannot be entertained. In support of his contention he also referred to and relied upon the ratio of the decision in Maharaj Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1990 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed classification list on 17-11-1978. According to the appellants they claimed the said revised classification list to be operative retrospectively w.e.f. 18-10-1978. However, simultaneously vide their letter dated 20-11-1978 they also claimed the refund of excise duty already paid. Notwithstanding the fact as to when the classification list was filed, the appellants have vide their letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has to be entertained and a rejection thereof on the grounds as adopted by the authorities below do not appear to be justified. This is to be taken as a case simplicities of an amount paid in excess though not chargeable to duty and the claim is lodged within the period of six months. The same has to be allowed as such. Under the circumstances, it appears that the claim has been wrongly rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
