9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput. Vide Notification No. 178/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977, the appellants were entitled to claim set off in respect of C.E. duty paid on the said input. On 28-9-1977, the said Notification was amended and a condition was inserted that the manufacturer would furnish to the proper officer a statement showing the quantity of input used in the manufacture of every unit of the finished product. In order to avail of the benefit of the said Notification, the appellants filed a classification list and also a statement showing the monthwise quantity of Cobalt Octate consumed during the period June to September, 1977 and the quantity of three products obtained therefrom. These statements were verified and approved by the Range Superintendent (C.E.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Notification No. 178/77. It is also admitted that the appellants submitted the statement showing the monthwise quantity of Cobalt Octate so consumed during the relevant period and the Assistant Collector rejected the claim of set off (copy of the order at Ex. A ). It is also admitted that thereafter the ld. Collector (Appeals) vide his order dated 28-3-1981, held that the appellants were so eligible (copy of the order at Ex. B ). It has been contended by the appellants that in the meantime, the Central Government had rescinded the Notification and so it was not possible for them to claim set off, so, they had applied for refund in cash. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as, in his view, it was not permissible bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case, as the appellants could not avail of the set off because of the fact that the Assistant Collector has rejected their claim and the ld. Collector (Appeals) decided the appeal in March, 1981, the appellants had to claim the set off by way of cash refund. 6. Recently, by Order No. 38/90-C dated 17-1-1990 in Appeal No. E/1900/85-C in the case of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1990 (47) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.)] this Tribunal (incidentally speaking through me) has held that such amount can be claimed by way of cash refund also. 7. As contended by the ld. SDR, the Trade Notices were issued by the different Collectorates that such set off could be claimed only by way of set off. It may be noted that ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
