9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion list, under which the amount was being paid, the appellant claimed exemption only under Notification No. 220/77 and not under any other notification and hence claiming further exemption under another notification not specified in the classified list is not permissible. 2. Shri G.C. Biradar, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the applicants, submitted that the claim for another amount of Rs. 120.26 and Rs. 446.02 have also been rejected but he was not pressing the appeal in relation to those amounts and was only restricting to the appeal to the rejection of the claim for Rs. 14,255.68. He submitted that this claim relates to the excise duty paid for the period from 30-7-1977 to 19-1-78 and during the said period the classification list was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is otherwise admissible and which otherwise has been given to them for the subsequent period by the department. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the South Regional Bench reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 687 (Tribunal) in Collector of Central Excise v. Mysore Acetate & Chemicals Co. Ltd. and pleaded that if the classification list is finally approved but specific claim for benefit of notification is not made therein, even then refund application made within limitation period under Sec. 11B of the Act, shall not be rejected merely because exemption is not claimed in the classification list. He submitted that this decision of the Tribunal was attracted here on all fours and the rejection of the claim by the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lists were finally approved. It may be noted here that when the refund claim was initially filed, the same was rejected as barred by time. When the matter was however taken up in appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that the plea of time bar was not available to the department and that the department ought to adjudicate the refund claim on its merits. While considering the refund claim on merits, the department agreed to grant of refund to the extent of 3% that is, the difference between 13% and 10% as claimed under Notification No. 220/77 but denied additional refund to the extent of 2% under Notification No. 218/77. 5. The only issue therefore, that requires to be considered is whether non mentioning of a particular exemption notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 218/77 but have categorically declared that they were the Small Scale Industries Unit and when such a declaration was there, obviously the exemption available to such Small Scale Industries Units ought to have been known to the department.
6. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I hold that the order passed by the authorities below cannot be sustained and hence the order pertaining to difference between the amount of refund claimed @ 5% and amount admissible @ 3% amounting to Rs. 14,255.68 is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
7. It is once again clarified that the appeal is allowed to the extent of Rs. 14,255.68 for which only the appellants have pressed their point before me. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
