9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed (Rs.) Period Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills 8-9-1986 8,51,173.00 23-3-1986 to 23-4-1986 Rajasthan Processors 15-10-1986 1,30,200.00 17-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 Sangam Processors 15-10-1986 1,39,452.00 12-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 2. The claims were made on the ground that man-made fabrics containing polyester viscose cleared by them during the period in question, were correctly assessable to duty under Heading 55.12 CETA, 85 but that through Finance Bill, 1986 higher rate of duty was levied by classifying them under Heading 55.08 CETA. However, through amendment to the Bill introduced on 24-4-1986, which received President's assent on 13-5-1986, the rate of duty on man-made fabrics was brought down to pre-1-3-1986 level. Subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en passed on to any other person. These orders of the Assistant Collector were sought to be reviewed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, who filed application under Sec. 35E for review of the Assistant Collector's order before Collector (Appeals). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, by his impugned common order dated 31-7-1990, held that the appellants cannot be said to have complied with provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11C because they had in fact collected the duty from customers at the time of clearance and also held that the issue of credit notes will not also bring them within the ambit of that sub-section. The Collector (Appeals) also observed that the Tribunal order in the case of Collector of C. Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in these cases the 11C Notification had been issued only on 21-12-1988 when sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11C was already on the statute which stipulated that the person claiming refund should satisfy the Assistant Collector with proof to show that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The credit notes had been issued by the appellants after the amendment to Sec. 11C in July, 1988. Further, the terms `any other person' occurring in Sec. 11C(2) has a wider ambit and would include the ultimate consumer and not merely wholesale dealers. 4. The submissions made by both the parties, herein, have been carefully, considered. In all these appeals, the question to be determined is whether the appellants can be said to be eligible for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made good by the appellants granting credit notes to the customers as verified by the Assistant Collector in his second order during de novo proceedings and that thereby they have fulfilled the condition in Sec. 11C(2). It is not possible to accept the contention because a plain reading of Sec. 11C(2) would show what is required thereunder is that the person claiming refund should apply within six months of the issue of 11C Notification with satisfactory proof to show that duty incidence has not been passed on to `any other person'. Such is not the case here because in these cases the appellants have admittedly passed on the incidence at the time of clearance of the goods on payment of duty and had filed the refund claims under Sec. 11B in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
