9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the rate of 1 % of such yarn duty. If the fabric when cleared is processed fabric, interest on the yarn duty payable is at the rate of 3%. The appellants were paying interest in the rate of 3% on grey calendered or sheared cotton fabrics. This was because the department took the view that calendering or shearing made the cloth a processed fabric. In the year 1989, the Supreme Court gave a decision in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 218 (S.C.) holding that calendering does not convert grey fabric into processed fabric. On coming to know about the decision, the appellant filed a refund claim on 23-3-1989 for Rs. 2,16,281 for the period Nov., 1979 to August, 1988. The Asstt. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation is applicable to the refund of duty recovered without authority of law and without jurisdiction. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the procedure for payment of duty under protest contained in Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules is not applicable for the same reason as aforesaid that interest on duty is not duty. 3. Shri Talagia, the ld. DR contended that where the statute does not provide any limitation, the reasonable limit should be read into it. This is a well settled law. In this case, the application for refund beyond six months has rightly been rejected. Mention was also made of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 616 (Guj.) = 1997 (68) ECR 209 (S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of C.Ex. v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.), whereunder, the Supreme Court observed that when the duty has been levied without the authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder have no application, the decision will be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point when the mistake or the error comes to light. But, the Supreme Court observed that in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, the assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and Rules must be adhered to. The authorities functioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for refund is permissible except under and in accordance with Rule 11 and Section 11B. An observation in the judgment relevant to this case is that the Supreme Court held that the theory of mistake of law and the consequent period of limitation of three years from the date of discovery of such mistake of law cannot be invoked by an assessee taking advantage of the decision in another assessee s case. All claims for refund ought to be, and ought to have been, filed only under and in accordance with Rule 11/Section 11B and under no other provision and in no other forum. 5. In the face of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the very ground for the refund claim of the appellants disappears because in this case also the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
