9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents. [Order per : K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)]. This matter relates to the respondent s refund claim under Exemption Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-1976 (commonly known as incentive scheme for higher production). The Assistant Collector rejected the claim but the Appellate Collector allowed it. The Department has appealed before us against the Appellate Collector s order on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption and for that purpose submitted his prescribed declaration for the Assistant Collector s approval, the assessee should be deemed to have staked his claim for the exemption and the limitation of Rule 11 should be considered to have stopped running against him on that date. Three of such cases are cited below : (i) 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1274 (CEGAT) - New Jatiaga Valley Tea Estates Ltd., Calcu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t their declaration had been submitted to the Superintendent on 28-3-1977. However, this difference in the two dates is not material for the purpose of deciding the case before us). The time limit laid down in Rule 11 at that time was one year. Following the ratio of the aforesaid earlier orders of this Tribunal, we hold that the claim of the respondents was within the time limit of one year and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proval thereon from the Asstt. Collector. The respondents did go through that drill. And, as already observed by us in the previous paragraph, they staked their claim within the prescribed time limit of Rule 11. The Department s plea regarding the assessee having not disputed the classification list has, therefore, no substance. 5. In the light of our above discussions, we reject the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
