9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that their appeal had been filed against the Assistant Collector s order dated 11-2-1985 which was merely a reply to their representation dated 12-12-1981. The cause of action had arisen on 12-12-1981 and they failed to avail the same and the communication dated 11-2-1985 simply drew their attention to it. It was, therefore, concluded by the Collector (Appeals) that it was thus merely a letter against which no appeal lay. For this view, he has sought support from the decision of the Tribunal in Brooke Bond (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1169. 2. In their appeal the appellants have contended that they had paid duty under protest during the period 18-6-1977 to 19-5-1981, as goods were covered by No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Collector rejecting their refund claim had been communicated to them by the letter of the Superintendent. The subsequent letter of the Assistant Collector was not a fresh order but merely communicated to them the fact that the refund claim had already been rejected by the Assistant Collector and, as such, the same stood disposed of and could not be reopened by him at that stage. It was a correct statement of the legal position. No appeal could be filed against the same and the appeal filed by them was rightly rejected by this Collector (Appeals). This is correct in law and deserves to be upheld. He, therefore, argued that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, and also perused the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by limitation of time . Sd/- N.C. Lahiri Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rishra Division. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S.L. Roy) Superintendent (Tech) Central Excise, Rishra Division Calcutta". In what is purported to be an order, the Asstt. Collector, inter alia , directed them to obtain orders from the competent authority granting them exemption. Actually, he himself was the competent authority to grant the exemption but he had put himself in the background and directed that they may obtain orders from the competent authority granting them exemption, as if he was not that competent authority. If, however, that was really required, rejecting the claim was then premature. All the same he proceeded to reject the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercises. The exchange of correspondence, scrutiny etc. lasting more than three years culminated in the communication dated 11-2-85. 7. Apparently wiser by their earlier experience, the appellants this time switched over to the next year and filed the appeal to the Collector (Appeals). Its rejection by that authority has made them step up their remedial drive leading to the present appeal. The facts disclosed now leave us in no doubt whatsoever that the refund claim had not been disposed of properly. Apart from the claim of payment of duty under protest, it has been pointed out in the appeal that they had written a letter dated 16-5-79 claiming exemption furnishing necessary particulars. From a perusal of the copy of the said letter subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
