9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and to whom an application for refund is to be made in particular when no practice or procedure was prevalent in this Collectorate to receive such application on behalf of the Assistant Collector by the Inspector/Range Superintendent? (3) Whether the appellants were not obliged to file the claim within the period of limitation and before the competent authority prescribed under Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? (4) Whether the authority competent to sanction the claim has within jurisdiction amended the Show Cause Notice and finalized the claim the advance credit of which was allowed provisionally ? (5) Whether or not the Order No. A/476/89-NRB dated 4-12-1989 renders the Orders of the Supreme Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants alleging that the original claim submitted by them to the Superintendent of Central Excise and received in the Office of Assistant Collector on 25-6-1983 was barred by time. It was, therefore, proposed as to why amount credited to their PLA should not be recovered from them. After adjudication by Assistant Collector it was held that their refund claim received in the office of the Assistant Collector on 25-6-1983 was barred by time and therefore, it could not be entertained. Accordingly, the amount to the tune of Rs. 8,95,958.88 credited in the PLA was ordered to be recovered. The appellants filed an appeal before lower Appellate Authority, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The Collector (Appeals), in rejecting the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within time and before the competent authority because the Supdt. received the refund claim on behalf of the Assistant Collector. The question being thus an appreciation of evidence on record is not a question of law. Hence not referable to the High Court. (4) This question docs not arise out of the Tribunal s order. The impugned order passed by original authority had decided only the question of time bar of the refund claim and not at all given any finding about provisionality of the advance credit. (5) The question indicates a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. A.C.C. [1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) = 1985 ECR 289 (SC)]. Such a question was raised in C.C.E. Kanpur v. M/s. Samaj Biri Co. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
