9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 70 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants submitted two refund claims. Refund claim for Rs. 22,50,220.50 was sent on l9th August, 1985 and was received on 22nd August, 1985. The appellants sent another refund claim for Rs. 2,65,03,391 on 12-9-1985 which was received on 16-9-1985. These two refund claims were submitted by the appellants on the ground that duty was based on per sq. metre under Notification No. 82/82, dated 28-2-1982. However, the appellants paid duty on fraction of a sq. metre and therefore, this payment on the fraction of sq. metre became refundable. Show-cause notice was issued on 10th December, 1985 asking appellants to submit original documents on the strength of which both the refund claims have been filed alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the goods was provisional and that the necessary remarks were incorporated on the gate pass and the RT-12 returns and therefore, that limitation will not apply in their case. The learned DR Shri J.M. Sharma submitted that two issues arose for determination before the lower authorities. The first issue was that what is the intention of the legislature by using words per millimetre thickness per sq. metre and the second issue was whether the duty was paid under protest. The learned DR submitted that the appellants filed a price-list effective from 14-7-1976. This price-list was approved by the competent authority. B-13 Bond was executed by the appellants in the light of the directions given by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. This B-13 Bond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Order No 195/95-D, dated 27-7-1995 of this Tribunal ; that the facts in the instant case are identical to the facts of the case which was decided by the Tribunal. The appellants have, therefore, requested that the appeal may be decided on the basis of the Tribunal s order referred to supra. 7. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that there are two issues involved in this case. The first issue is whether the claims are time-barred and the second issue is whether the appellants are entitled to ignore the fraction for calculating the duty. We find that this Tribunal, in the appellants own case, in its Final Order No. 195/95-D, dated 27-7-1995 in para 6 had held : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
