9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification. Respondent filed declaration on 17-9-1976 before the Assistant Collector for determination by him of the base period and base clearances so as to enable respondent to avail benefit of the Notification. Approval was given on 27-5-1977. Meanwhile respondent was paying full amount of duty and assessments were made on monthly RT 12 returns. By letter dated 6-6-1976 respondent addressed to Assistant Collector [and] it was pointed out that exemption benefit could not be availed in time in view of the belated approval and respondent was entitled to refund of the excess duty paid. By this letter respondent requested that the excess amount may be adjusted in the PLA account. Since no response was forthcoming, respondent on 8-7-1978 submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Assistant Collector and on the same date, that is 27-5-1977 respondent filed revised classification list for the earlier period also claiming benefit of Notification. It is contended that since the benefit of Notification was not claimed in the earlier classification list, and the revised classification list was filed after a considerable period, respondent would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification. This argument was rightly rejected by Collector (Appeals) because original classification list was filed before the issue of Notification and benefit could not have been availed and immediately after the issue of the Notification, respondent approached the proper officer with necessary papers to obtain approval and determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (f), namely, the date of payment of duty. In the very nature of things, manufacturer could not file refund claim within six months of date of payment of duty since entitlement was to depend upon the determination of the base period and base clearances by the proper officer. 5. The above difficulty was get over by a Bench of the Tribunal in K.B. Foams Limited v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 476 by observing that the commencement of the period of limitation was the date of approval of base period and base clearances. The decision does not explain the basis for the reasoning behind this observation. We find two other decisions of the Tribunal where a logical explanation is given for giving relief to assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
