9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit and is undisputedly entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. After obtaining the licence in January, 1992, the appellant filed a classification list effective from 17th January, 1992 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 which granted exemption up to an aggregate value clearances of Rs. 30,000,00/- subject to the condition that for any single tariff item, the clearances value was not exceeded Rs. 20,000,00/-. The said classification list was approved by the proper officer on 27-7-1992 and was conveyed to the appellants by the Assistant Collector vide his letter dated 23-12-1992. Vide the said approval, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was extended to the appellants. 1.3 However, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice dated 16-7-1992. Vide the show cause notice dated 2-7-1993, the department proposed to reject the refund claim on the ground that the same had been filed after a period of six months from the relevant date and barred by limitation. The refund claim was also proposed to be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The said show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector vide which he admitted the refund claim on merits but rejected the same on the ground of time-bar. The Assistant Collector also observed that the amount of duty involved in the instant case, was not ultimately collected from the customers resulting in no unjust enrichment. On an appeal against the above order, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 in deciding the subject Appeal No. E(SB)-4078/95 was legal or proper? 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from the concerned Commissioner which were reiterated by the ld. SDR in the course of his arguments in support of his Reference Application. We have also considered the submissions of the ld. Advocate Shri S.N.S. Mohapatra for the respondents herein. We observe facts and circumstances of the case are more less identical to the facts and circumstances of the Samrat International s case. Consequently the reliance placed by the Tribunal on that judgment of the Apex Court is correct and no question of law arises. The issue is already settled by the Apex Court and therefore there is no need of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
