9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute as to the valuation of the manufactured item and the provisional assessments were made. The provisional assessments were finalised on 23-8-1983 and the appellants vide their applications dated 12-2-1984 and 13-2-1984 along with other claims, have filed claims for the subject refunds, which were sanctioned vide Assistant Commissioner's order dated 2-1-1986. Subsequently, however, show cause notice dated 7-4-1986 was issued alleging that the refund claim for a period from 1-3-1983 to 24-7-1987 filed on 12-2-1984 and 13-2-1984 was barred by limitation and the refund sanctioned was erroneous. The adjudicating authority vide his order dated 7-4-1986, however, dropped the show cause notice. The Department, therefore, went in appeal and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment, which in the instant case is 23-8-1983 and the refund claims have been filed within the period of six months thereafter. He also submits that a letter raising the dispute as to the classification was already submitted and the said letter only omitted mentioning that the duty was paid under protest. In any case, by the said letter, they were saved from the applicability of the period of limitation. In his submission, therefore, on either of the grounds, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable and that the refund claim already sanctioned cannot be held to have been erroneously sanctioned. 4. Shri Mondal, the ld. Departmental Representative, however, submits that the provisional assessment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been sanctioned erroneously cannot be entertained and the approach of the authority below is not proper and hence the order confirming the demand cannot be sustained and hence the same is set aside. 6. So far as the other issue is concerned, it has not been raised as an issue in the show cause notice and further on the factual aspect, the amount has already been paid on the date of coming into operation of the amended provisions of Section 11B. Application for grant of refund was not pending at any stage. It may be observed that no appeal is preferred by the Department against the order dated 2-1-1986 sanctioning the refund and as such the issue appears to have been not arising out of the order appealed against. Under these circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een disposed of and refund orders has been made. 9. Shri Mondal submits that he relies strongly on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipments - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 705 (Mad.)=1993 (41) ECC 102 (Madras). In this case, the order of the Court made by a Single Judge directing refund be made to the respondents, was set aside by the order of the Division Bench on hearing the appeal of the Department. I have carefully perused the cited order. In this case, an application for refund was filed on 2-5-1987. At the same time, the claimants had also filed a writ petition for direction to Department to refund the amount. Even where the Hon'ble Single Judge made an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
