9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that M/s. Macneill Magor Ltd. (the Respondents in the present case) held a Central Excise Licence in form L-4 and manufactured and cleared their excisable goods falling under T.I. 34B during the period from April, 1982 to December, 1984 relating to the price lists No. 1 dated 28-1-1982 to 29 dated 27-11-1984 for which they submitted a refund claim of Rs. 5,85,263.18 in view of the Order No. 474/1986A dated 20-6-1986 of the CEGAT, New Delhi, arising out of Order (Original) No. 2/PL/34B/Cal-I/I-D/84 dated 15-11-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector. It was found by the department on scrutiny that the said refund claim for duty paid against the clearances of goods cleared during the period from April, 1982 to October, 1982 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce lists from No. 1 dated 28-1-1982 to 20 dated 10-10-1982 as alleged in the show cause notice stands valid. 3. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Assistant Collector, as mentioned above, the Respondents preferred an Appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, who, in terms of his impugned order set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and held that the assessee is entitled for the refund of the amount Rs. 1,85,076.44. It is against that order, the present Appeal is filed. 4. The learned J.D.R. Shri N.K. Mandal, appearing for the Appellants contended that the Respondents at first raised the point that the refund claim of Rs. 5,85,263.18 was submitted for the amount of duty paid and deposited by them ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the above-said amount having been paid by the Respondents for a period prior to 15-10-1982, their refund claim is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, he prayed that the Appeal may be allowed. 6. The learned Advocate Shri S.K. Bagaria appeared for the Respondents. It was his contention that the assessment of the Respondents for the entire period w.e.f. April, 1982 to October, 1982 was kept pending by the department. The said assessment was finalised only after the passing of the order dated 15th November, 1984 by the Assistant Collector. He also pointed out that after the passing of that order dated 15th November, 1984 the assessments for the relevant period from April, 1982 onwards were made by the Central Excise authorities. He al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30th June, 1986. Therefore, the Refund Claim made on August 25, 1986 is not barred by limitation. 7. We have considered the submissions. The point that arises for our determination is whether the refund claim of the respondents was correctly allowed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). It is seen that the amount in question was collected from the Respondents in terms of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 15th November, 1984. This particular order of the Assistant Collector which was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was set aside by the Tribunal in terms of its orders dated 20-6-1986. But it was pointed out by the learned JDR, that in that order, the period relevant to the controv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned wrote a letter to the Respondents dated 18th/19th December, 1985 bearing No. CE/20/PME/XV-6/84/1122 whereby he demanded the duty to the extent of Rs. 3,88,482.22. In terms of that letter, the Respondents had deposited Rs. 4,20,000/- in three instalments. In so depositing the abovesaid amount they have specifically mentioned in their letters dated 7th March, 1986, 30th April, 1986 and 30th June, 1986 that these deposits are made in terms of the letter of the Superintendent dated 18th/19th December, 1985. Out of this amount they have claimed the disputed amount of Rs. 1,85,076.44. Therefore, their refund application dated 25th August, 1986 is within a period of six months from the date of payment of the abovesaid duty. In that view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive anticipating a favourable decision of the Tribunal on the issue and in order to take advantage of a refund claim. In such a situation, it has been urged, the date of payment against the pending demands should not be treated as the relevant date. This contention is plainly untenable. Even if the respondent had delayed the payment of the demand for whatever reason, the relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act would be only the date of such payment of such additional duty demanded and not the dates of clearances of the goods and the dates of payment of duty at the time of such clearances. The refund is in respect of such subsequent payments only and not of the originally paid amounts. Accordingly, the refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
