9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able value and such refunds will have to be claimed only by filing a proper claim in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act. Inasmuch as, even in the case of provisional assessment after the amendment made to Section 11B the time-limit of six months would operate not from the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment but from the date of payment of duty, as envisaged under Section 11B(5)(b)(f) of the Act. He therefore, held that in all the cases relating to these appeals, formal refund claims have not been filed in terms of Section 11B of the Act. He therefore, rejected all the appeals by sustaining the order-in-original. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant have come in appeal before us on the ground that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for refund being filed by the assessee as reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 543 (Tri.) and 1989 (44) E.L.T. 259 (Tri.). They also submitted that similar view had been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Tata Oil Mills case 1990 (46) E.L.T. 438 (Tri.). 3. Shri P. Devaludu, ld. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and reiterates the finding recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that formal refund claim was required to be filed by them after the impugned order. The assessment of RT 12 returns was communicated to them and they were required to file the claim within six months from the date of communication of the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions made by Shri. P. Devaludu as well as the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration of the difference between the actual quantitative discount allowed to the dealers at the depots minus the quantitative discount claimed at 8% on a provisional basis. The appellants had filed these appeals against the assessment of RT 12 for the months for April, '94 to Jan., '95 and the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the additional discount is rebatable, but rejected the appeals on the ground that normal refund claims have not been filed within six months from the date of payment of duty in terms of Section 11B of the Act. We observe that the amendment made to Section 11B was w.e.f. 1-8-98, whereas the claims pertain to the period 94-95. However, inasmuch as Section 11B(5)(b)(f) was inserted w.e.f. 1-8-98 and since asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
