9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26,839.87 sanctioned by the Assistant Collector an amount of Rs. 35,837.29 for the period 1-4-1982 to 30-9-1982 could not be refunded as the claim was time-barred, the appellant having filed the claim with the Assistant Collector on 30-3-1983. In the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant-Collector, before the Collector (Appeals), the Collector stated that the protest letter filed by the appellant did not incorporate the claim for exemption under Notification 80/80 dated 19-6-1980 which claim was later found by the authorities to be in order. The Collector (Appeals) took note of this fact and also found that the RT 12 return and the gate passes had not been endorsed as required under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund arising out of an order in appeal or revision as contemplated in Section 11(B)(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the instant case, the assessee filed the refund claim on 30-3-1983. Hence the claim for the period prior to 1-10-1982 i.e. for the period 1-4-1982 to 30-9-1982 is hit by time bar. The refund of Rs. 35,837.29 for this period is therefore erroneous and is recoverable by invoking the provisions of Section 35(E)(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He pleaded that in the grounds of appeal, filed before the Collector (Appeals) however, mention was made that the protest letter filed was for a different reason for claiming the refund under Notification 80/80. He pleaded that the authority who verified th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be for any different reason by the lower appellate authority. The letter of the appellant therefore at that time can only be taken to be in the context of payment of duty since the appellants were not required to pay duty under Notification 80/80 which claim was later upheld by the authority. In view of this, I hold that this letter has to be treated as a letter of protest. In regard to endorsement in the RT 12 Returns and gate passes the Department has not produced the documents to establish their case as directed by the Bench. I also find that in regard to the endorsement on the gate passes and RT 12 returns, the Collector has made the observation without putting the appellants on notice. The Collector should have verified the RT 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
