9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts and were availing Modvat facility under Central Excise Rules. Sometimes they were clearing duty paid inputs under cover of excise invoice under Rule 57F(1)(ii) procedure. In respect of one clearance vide Invoice No. 514, dated 30-11-1995 through oversight the duty was calculated and paid in excess to the extent of Rs. 1,40,800/- than the actual amount of duty requird to be paid i.e. the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey accordingly filed a refund claim on 25-9-1996. Thereafter they were issued show cause notice that since the refund claim was filed after six months from the payment of duty the same was time barred and the refund claim was rejected. 2. The appellants were heard in the mater on 21-8-1997 wherein they were represented by Shri S.J. Ghatage, Manager Excise and others. The appellants submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise instead of Asstt. Commissioner, time limit is computable from the date of submission of refund claim to the Excise Superintendent. It was further submitted that the refund claim pertains to the excess amount paid and the same should not be treated as the duty on the goods cleared for which no formal refund application under Section 11B is required, as was held in Balaji Fasteners v. C.C.E. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim was not in proper format they should have communicated to the appelants immediately. The appellant was given the impression that the refund will be ordered on finalisation of the RT 12 assessment order. But though the RT 12 was finalised in June, 1996, no refund claim was sanctioned and the appellant was asked to file a regular refund claim in July, 1996 only. Since in this case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
