9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commenced manufacture of the aforesaid goods from 1-12-1983 and during the year 1983-84 they cleared the said goods, worth Rs. 6,88,772.50 claiming exemption under Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983. In the year 1984-85 the assessee filed classification list effective from 1-4-1984 for the said product claiming exemption under Notification 74/78, dated 1-3-1978 (as amended) but they did not indicate that they want to avail exemption under Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 during the Financial Year 1984-85 in respect of the aforesaid goods. On the contrary they subscribed declaration to the following effect in the aforesaid C.L. (1) Value of goods cleared during 1983-84 Rs. 5,88,722.50. (2) We are manufacturing only one item i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. appearing for the Department, reiterated the grounds of appeal and contended that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in allowing the respondent s appeal on limitation and urged that the time limit of six months from the relevant date i.e. date of payment of duty in this case, as laid down in Sec. 11B of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 would prevail even where the refund claim related to exemption based on value of clearances in a financial year. He cited and relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Asian Bearing Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 532. 6. The Ld. Counsel, Shri Jaideep C. Patel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Assistant Collector had not taken this ground in hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financial year or from the date of payment of duty as laid down under explanation below Section 11B. The Tribunal has specifically answered this very question on a detailed examination of the provisions of Sec. 11B of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and the case law on the subject in its decision in Asian Bearing Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1991 (51) E.L.T. 532 relied upon by the Ld. D.R. wherein the Tribunal made the following observations. In this connection it is worth noting, even at the cost of repetition, that Sec. 11(B) provided for different contingencies and different relevant dates" for each separate contingency...... There is, therefore, no reason to suppose in the absence of a definition in this behalf, that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
