9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period from 1-4-1978 to 28-2-1979, they had purchased these accessories totalling value of Rs. 9,60,671/- on which they paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,033.55 @ 5% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Under Notification No. 68/71-C.E., dated 29-5-1971, plastic cabinets falling under Tariff Item 15A(2) and made out of either duty paid polystyrene falling under Tariff Item 15A(1) or made out of scrap of plastic were exempt from the payment from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. However, the appellants paid duty of Rs. 1,13,714.57 during the above mentioned period @ 5% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68. They filed an application for refund of the duty of Rs. 48,033.55 paid by them on bought out acces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) rejecting their claim for refund of duty on plastic cabinets as time barred. 2. We have heard Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri A.K. Madan, learned DR. The authorities below have rightly held that the original claim which related to refund of duty paid on bought out items was independent and separate from the subsequent claim for refund of duty paid on goods manufactured by the appellants and both were independent and separate claims and the claim for refund of duty on goods manufactured could, therefore, not be considered as in continuation of or as an amendment of the original refund claim. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities and reject the appeal holding that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier) claim and therefore, should not be considered as barred by limitation cannot be accepted for a variety of reasons - (1) that the first claim related to two items, the accessories and the cabinets and (2) it was claimed on different grounds - in respect of accessories that they were trading items and in respect of the cabinets with reference to Notification No. 89/79 and was even then partly time barred and (3) the second claim is only with reference to the items manufactured by them and with reference to a different notification, namely 68/71 and (4) was for a different amount. I, therefore, agree with my learned Colleague that the claim was time barred, as already announced in the open Court. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
