9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants in terms of the Notification 111/90, dated 16-5-1990 and 112/90, dated 16-5-1990 should have paid the lower rate of duty as against the higher rate which was paid in terms of the approved classification list filed earlier. He fairly conceded that the appellants did not file revised classification and price list consequent on the issue of these notifications. He further pleaded that the appellants filed RT 12 returns as required under Rule 173G and the same were assessed on 29-8-1990 by the Supdt. of Central Excise who on the assessed RT 12 returns indicated that the appellants would be eligible for the refund of the excess amount of duty paid in view of the new rates prescribed under Notifications 111/90 and 112/90 and that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed as under : 4. On examination of the impugned letter and the contentions of the appellants I find that although the Superintendent is not expected to make observation pointing out the applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment this advice that the excess payment was not because of wrong calculations but because of change in the rates of duties and hence they should file a refund claim is not objectionable. According to the executive instructions and the procedure in vogue the Superintendents are authorised to permit credits only where arithmetical error or calculation mistakes are involved with reference to the approved rate of duty and approved value of the Superintendent is not competent to go beyond the approved classifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed classification and price list consequent on the revision of duty downwards and the assessments done based on the approval granted was correct. The Supdt. while assessing the RT 12s noted that the appellants would be entitled to the refund subject to their filing the refund claim. Inasmuch as the appellants had not filed the refund claim within 6 months period as provided for under Section 11B, the appellants refund claim is barred by limitation. 6. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that admittedly the appellants had filed refund claim on 29-1-1991 which was after a period of six months from the date of payment of duty for the clearances made from 16-5-1990 to 19-6-1990. The appellants claim for refund in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
