9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onthalia, Director, for the Respondents. [Order per: N.K. Bajpai, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accepting the plea of respondents herein that they were eligible for availing of the benefit of Notification-178/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 as a consequence of which they became entitled to refund of duty. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t falling under Rule 56A. 2. The departments contention in the appeal before us is that Rule 11, as applicable at the relevant time did not contain anything like set-off in the Explanation appended thereto. Moreover, the respondents did not pay the duty on the inputs for which they had lodged the claim for refund. Duty in fact was paid by the manufacturer from whom the respondents had purchased t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 560] in which the Tribunal allowed set-off of duty earned under Notification No. 178/77, but not utilised due to delay in grant of permission. The claim is that the respondents had applied for permission for claiming set-off under the notification and the prescribed procedure of intimation on D3 and accounting was also followed, but set-off could not be taken for want of permission. Copy of a let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies, they could claim refund of the duty paid on finished product, which is what they have done in the present case. There is no reason why their claim for refund should have been rejected as time-barred in these circumstances. Tribunal's judgment in Kothari Chemical's case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The appeal of the department against the order of Collector (Appeals) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
