9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. Date E.439/87-BOM H.N. 988/PN-256/86 dated 7-5-1987. E.440/87-BOM H.N. 987/PN-255/86 dated 7-5-1987. E.441/87-BOM H.N. 57/PN-55/87 dated 7-5-1987. 3. In all the aforesaid cases, the Collector (Appeals) has rejected the appellants appeals against the endorsement made by the Supdt. requesting them to file separate refund claims in respect of certain alleged excess payments made in RT 12 returns for which they claimed credit in PLA to be authorised by the Supdt. The Collector (Appeals) has held in all the three cases that the Supdt. s endorsement advising them to file refund claims is perfectly in order and hence rejected their appeals. The present appeals are against the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons for the excess. Before Collector (Appeals), they have the particulars that Rs. 4400/- was double payment under G.P. No. 620 and 617 and Rs. 1760/- excess has been paid on G.P. 623 due to revision in the cost of those items. 8. Shri Baxi, the Ld. advocate, sought to emphasise on the following aspects of legal position, for allowing these appeals : (i) Rule 173-1 contemplates an enquiry to be done by the proper officer during assessment and hence even if the details as to how excess payments have been made are not furnished, he should cause necessary enquiry to be made and assessment should be done properly and the excess payment should be given credit. The powers of the assessing officer under Rule 173-1 do not stop him giving cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous excess payment or short payment arising on account of arithmetical/clerical errors. However, the same West Regional Bench in its order No. 2175/90 in appeal No. E/382/90-BOM in the case of M/s. Menon Pistons Ltd. have held that excess payment pointed out by the assessee in the RT 12 returns should be considered and credit allowed under Rule 173-1. However, this case also relates to excess payment on account of arithmetical error. 10. Shri Naik, the Ld. JDR for the respondent, pleaded that in the case of Appeal No. 439/87, the endorsement made on the RT 12 returns by the assessee merely reads that the excess duty has been paid under certain gate passes without even giving any details as to how such excess payments have arisen. From t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy cannot save the limitation under Sec. 11A. This view has been accepted in a number of cases by the Tribunal. In this context, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 724. He, therefore, pleaded that when there is an independent and self contained section available under Sec. 11B for claiming refund, the Supdt. is perfectly justified in advising the appellants to take action under the said section, especially, when some of the excess payments relate to revision of assessable value, which is not falling within his purview. He also referred to the Hand Book of Self Removal Procedure and pleaded that only excess payment on account of late receipt of notification or/and excess payment on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee under Rules 173Band 173C of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, the scope of any enquiry contemplated under Rule 173-1, by the proper officer could not extend to enquiries concerning valuation or classification. The scheme of SRP also contemplates that once classification list and the price list are approved by the Asstt. Collector, the assessee is to determine the duty payable on the basis of the approved classification/price lists. The nature and scope of enquiry, which the assessing officer, viz. Supdt. can carry out would fall within the restricted sphere - as to whether there had been any excess payment or short payment on account of arithmetical/clerical errors or on account of double payment of duty on the same goods b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was a case of refund claim which was rejected as time-barred. However, an endorsement has been made earlier on the RT 12 pointing out the excess payment. Even in this case, classification list was not approved by the A.C. at the rate indicated in the RT 12 returns and it was later approved by him extending, the benefit of the lower rate for the relevant period. In the case before us, no refund claims in respect of the alleged excess payment has been made. Only an endorsement without giving details of excess has been made. On going into the factual details of excess payment, subsequently explained before Collector (Appeals), we find that barring one case all other cases involve in revision of value for purpose of determining the correct du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
