9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 for Rs. 2,22,286.09 and to take back credit in RG 23 for Rs. 1,69,267.26 for the period 2-4-1981 to 29-8-1981. The ground for the refund claim was in terms of Notification 80/80 which is designed to give relief to small scale units and the exemption is linked to value of clearances during a financial year. The appellants said in their refund claim that the aggregate value of clearances of their product during the preceding financial year, namely, 1980-81 was less than Rs. 15 lakh, and that therefore, in terms of Notification 80/80 they were entitled to clear goods upto the value of Rs. 7.5 lakh without payment of duty during the financial year 1981-82 to which the refund claims pertained. They also claimed that the value of clearances for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a declaration to department for availing the notification was a necessary condition which the appellants failed to fulfil and also agreed with the Assistant Collector on his other findings. The present appeal is against this order of the Collector (Appeals). 2. Shri Gopal Prasad, ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants, submitted that although the Collector (Appeals) had held in their favour to hold that their refund claims are not time-barred, yet had concluded that in the absence of declaration the appellants were ineligible for the exemption. But the ld. Consultant pointed out, they were not required to file a declaration under the notification. When it was put to him as to how a claim can be made for exemption on inputs captive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... la in the case Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. T.I. Pilunny Prop. Royal Smiths reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2156 holding that limitation period will start from the date of payment of duty and not from the end of the year. Therefore, Collector (Appeal) s finding on this aspect is set aside and the Assistant Collector s order on limitation with reference to the period covered by the two refund claims in terms of Sec. 11B is correct in law. In respect of non-filing of declaration for availing the exemption under Notification 80/80 though this was referred to in the Show Cause Notice, there is no finding thereon in the Assistant Collector s order whereas it is held against them by the Collector (Appeals) in his order. Secondly, the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
