9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a refund of duty already paid on clearances during the period 23-8-1980 to 27-2-1981, in the absence of any declaration referred to in para 3 of the said notification. 3. By virtue of para 3 of said notification, a manufacturer who had not cleared any specified goods (aerated water in the present case) in the preceding financial year was entitled to the full exemption from payment of duty on the first clearances upto 7.5 lakhs during the financial year 1980-81, if he gave a declaration that (i) he is not likely to exceed the total clearances of Rs. 15 lakhs worth of specified goods during the financial year 1980-81 and that he did not actually exceed the said limit during 1980-81. It is not disputed that the appellants herein did not actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers/manufacturers whose total annual clearances of the specified goods does not exceed Rs.15 lakhs. There is no dispute that the clearances of the appellants during 1980-81 have not exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs. Non-making of the declaration is at the worst a technical ground. A substantive benefit should not be denied for a mere procedural lapse which has occurred due to ignorance of the appellants and lack of guidance from the local Central Excise Officers. He further urged that the benefit of lower rate of duty with effect from 1st April, 1981, by way of a refund was given by the department itself on a subsequent declaration on 30-9-1981 in a revised classification list filed by the appellants. 5. We have carefully considered the pleas advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to extending the benefit of the said notification. It is well-settled by now in a series of judgments of the Tribunal that a substantive benefit cannot be denied to an assessee for a procedural lapse.
6. Nor does it act as an estoppel to claim the benefit of a notification by way of a refund of duty, even if the duty was paid under an approved classification list so long as the refund claim is within time. In this case, it has already been found by the lower appellate authority against which there is no appeal by the revenue, that the assessments were provisional and therefore, there is no question of the claim being time-barred.
7. In the result, the appeals are allowed with consequential refund to the appellants. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
