9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue appeal is that the learned Collector (Appeals) in his order in appeal dated 13-11-1997 has treated the basic duty paid by the present respondents as deposit of duty and not excess duty erroneously paid and has therefore held that the time limit under Section 35B for claiming refund beyond six months from the date of payment of duty would not be applicable. 2. The learned DR submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctly but additional duty due to mistake of law and therefore time limit would not apply. 3. The learned DR submits this is not the correct position in law as it would negate the very concept of the provisions of Section 11B. Once the duty amount is debited either in the PLA or in the RG 23A Part II it cannot be regarded as deposit of duty but it is to be regarded as duty paid. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their administrative capacity. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the Revenue appeal and therefore, the same may be dismissed. He also submits that since the amount involved is less than Rs. 50,000/-, therefore, the Revenue appeal also merits rejection under the proviso to Section 35B. 5. I have considered the submissions and records of the case. I find that the respondents had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , then the provisions of Section 11B which prescribes time limit of six months for claiming refund of such duty would not be correct to be ignored or brushed aside on the ground that the amount was merely deposited and not duty paid. Therefore, I find there is merit in the Revenue appeal. I have considered the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Nipha Machinery Manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
