9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een filed in terms of Section 35G(1) of the CESA, 1944 seeking reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of the Tribunal s Final Order No. A/955/96-NB, dated 22-2-1996 : 1. Could the Tribunal suo moto reject the refund claim of the consignor which was already sanctioned on merits by the competent authority by implementing the orders of the Collector of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was removed from there some time between this date and 30-4-1976 when the substitution was detected by the preventive officers. Duty on this tobacco was demanded from the consignor vide D.D. 2, dated 17-5-1976 and it was paid under protest on 26-5-1976. Under what rule the non-duty paid character of tobacco was changed to duty paid to attract Sections 12B and 12C of the Act. 5. Relevant AR 3 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad in law and the appeal allowed. 2. The brief facts leading up to the filing of this application which are necessary for the understanding of the scope of the reference application are that the applicants herein had removed unmanufactured tobacco in 1976 to the warehouse of one Fateh Singh. A demand was raised on them as the triplicate copy of the AR 3 application duly endorsed with rewarehous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l upheld the finding of the authorities below that passing of the refund to the party was not in order, in view of the provisions of Section 12C of the Act and that the amount of Rs. 24,749.70 was, therefore, to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B(2). The Tribunal held that the tobacco was non-duty paid, and therefore, the question of refund of duty did not arise. 3. On he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
