9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es registration certificate. They got themselves registered with the Directorate of Industries with effect from 19-8-1986. As the appellants were not aware of the correct procedure and their eligibility for the concessional rate in terms of small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, they entered into correspondence with the Superintendent and the Assistant Collector for clarification on the point as to whethere the clearances effected prior to 18-8-1986 have to be taken into account for computation of total clearances in terms of Notification 175/86. No reply was received by them. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,61,309.90 on 1-4-1986 for the clearances effected during the period 8-11-1986 to 31-12-1986 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was finally issued on 28-8-1990 invoking extended period of five years for recovery of the erroneous refund of Rs. 1,61,309.90 by alleging that the refund by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 10-3-1988 was out of collusion. 3. It was on this ground that the Collector passed the impugned order holding that there was collusion between the appellants and the Assistant Collector in handling of the above issue and as such the longer period was available to the department for recovery of the said refund. The above allegation was based on the ground that the Assistant Collector in his communication prior to adjudication has given the correct interpretation of the Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 and at the time of passing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Collector who was charged with the collusion was served with any notice by the Department and whether any action was taken against him. In any case, we find that the appellants had been seeking opinion from the department as regards the interpretation of Notification and their eligibility for the concessional rate. As such, no mala fide is attributable to the appellants. The Assistant Collector also at the time of passing of the order gave a detailed reasoning for adopting a particular interpretation. He was not bound by his earlier opinion intimated to the appellants vide his communication. Similarly, non-marking of a copy to the Review Cell cannot be made the basis for sustaining the charge of collusion between the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
