9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-11-1975 for a sum of Rs. 1,58,461.52 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Division on the ground that the products (Blended and Compounded Lubricating Oils and Greases) falling under Item No. 11B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were produced out of duty-paid goods (Blended or Compounded Lubricating Oil) falling under the same Item and the said products were not liable to further duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-11 Division issued a show cause notice as to why the claim should not be rejected as it was beyond the period of limitation provided under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Respondents had filed a reply and after adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of finished blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases. 3. It was also stated that the claim is barred by limitation. The learned S.D.R., Shri M.N. Biswas contended that the application was barred by limitation. Even otherwise, it was contended that duty was correctly levied and the collection of duty on the said goods is authorised under law. 4. The learned Consultant, Shri P.R. Biswas for the respondent, in the first instance contended that the ground that duty was leviable in accordance with law was not mentioned in the show cause notice or in the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector. He also contended that the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector was based only on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1944 read with Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The said company are further directed to produce at the time of showing cause, all the evidences upon which they intend to rely in support of their defence. 3. The said company should also indicate in their written explanation whether they wish to be heard in person before the case is adjudicated. If no mention is made about this in their written explanation, it would be presumed that they do not desire any personal hearing. 4. If no cause is shown against the action proposed to be taken within one month s of receipt of this notice or they do not appear before the adjudicating officer when the case is posted for hearing, the case will be decided ex parte." It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kes an application for such refund under his signature and lodges it with the proper officer within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment, as the case may be. Thereafter, from 6-8-1977 the same was amended by Notification No. 266-267/77-C.E., dated 6-8-1977 and this rule was operative from 6-8-1977 to 16-11-1980. The present Section 11B was inserted with effect from 17-11-1980 vide Notification No. 182/80-C.E., dated 15-11-1980. The Rule which would be followed in the present case is the old Rule 11 and this Rule has to be read with old Rule 173J wherein the period of three months was extended to one year. In this case, though the application was made on 10-12-1975 the assessment was finalised on 5-3-1980. It is, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
