9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the time laid down in the law i.e. under Section 11-B of the Central Excises Salt Act (CE SA), 1944. The claim was, however, addressed to the Assistant Collector and it was filed with the Resident Inspector as per the practice. On 20th April, 1983, the Inspector desired some more documents to be filed by the respondents which were given to him on 15-7-1983. On 23-11-1983 he returned the claim to the respondents and advised them to file claim with the documents to the Assistant Collector. Within two months from that advise, the claim was filed by the respondents with the Assistant Collector. 1.2 The original authority, namely the Assistant Collector held the claim as time barred on the ground that under the provisions of law, namely S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving failed to do so and have given an impression to the appellant that their claim was under consideration, it is too late in the date for the department to raise the plea of time bar for rejecting the claim. The same cannot be upheld . 2. The department in its appeal has now urged that the Resident Inspector of Central Excise is not an agent of the Assistant Collector and therefore, filing of the refund claim with the Resident Inspector cannot be treated as a claim filed with the Assistant Collector. It has also been urged that Section 11-B specifically stipulates that the refund claim is to be filed with the Assistant Collector. The respondents, therefore, cannot ignore these provisions of law and the departmental officers cannot be he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 716 [CCE Allahabad v. Ghosi Sahkari Kray Vikray Prakrityatmak Samiti, Azamgarh ]. 4A. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. While endorsing the findings, as extracted above, of the lower appellate authority, we extract what we observed in para 4.2 of our order No. A/476/89-NRB dated 4-12-89 in M/s. Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE Kanpur :- Departmental Officers are the true guardians about the knowledge of the practice and procedure, it is in fact their bounden duty to guide the trade and industry in that respect. Knowledge of practice and procedure could not be merely the duty of assessees. In this case blame for lack of knowledge could not be put on the appellant/assessee. They had filed the refund claim add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
