9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondents. [Order per : Harish Chander, Vice President]. - M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants had made refund claim of Rs. 10,168.90 on the ground that they had wrongly paid duty on 32.860 MT of Burnt Lime and 64.320 MT of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce and the same was granted in the month of March, 1983 and he had taken the view that while granting the benefit of Notification No. 118/75 dated 30-4-1975 as amended by Notification No. 105/82 it was mandatory to follow Chapter X procedure and he had further observed that where the appellants had prepared themselves to follow the Chapter X procedure because they were having L 6 licence whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re there these were inadvertent. She further argued that there was substantive compliance, as such the benefit of Notification No. 118/75 should be extended to the appellants. In support of her arguments she cited a decision in the case of Hiranyakashi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (39) E.L.T. 658]. She had pleaded for acceptance of the appeal. Shri M.S. Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he only reason on which the benefit of notification under 118/75 has been denied by the Collector (Appeals) is that appellants did not follow the Chapter X procedure and they were required to satisfy the department regarding the use of steam in another factory of theirs. Unless, it is deliberate and malafide, failure on the part of the assessee to follow certain procedures cannot come in the way o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
