9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 3926.90 from April, 1987 onwards. The dispute on classification came to be finally decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Fenner India v. UOI Civil Appeal No. 4600/89 [1995 (77) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.)] and in the case of the present appellants (Civil Appeal No. 4427), holding that conveyor belting fell for classification under CET sub-heading 3926.90. This heading carried lower rate of duty than the duty payable under CET sub-heading 3920.12 under which the appellants had paid duty under protest and therefore, claimed for refund of excess duty of Rs. 9,91,29,859/- paid between 22-4-1987 and 31-3-1994 by the appellants, stating that the claim was filed on behalf of their customers (consignees) viz. M/s. South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Western ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed the incidence of duty to their customers and as such amount of duty is not refundable to them. There is no substance in their plea that under Rule 173S only they could have filed the refund claim instead of the various subsidiaries of the Coal India spread all over the country. Rule 173S only provides that any person claiming refund of any duty shall make an application in duplicate for refund of duty in the proper form to the Asstt. Collector having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacturer. The rule further provides that an application for refund shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. It is difficult to apprehend as to why the subsidiaries of Coal India Ltd. who are the customers could not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application on behalf of the manufacturer and is not liable to be rejected on the ground of locus standi. But this decision does not help the case of the appellants. In that case goods were moved from one to another under Chapter X Procedure. 3. Sec. 11B of Central Excise Act is self contained. It provides that any person who has not passed on the incidence of duty can file a claim for refund of duty. Once he has passed on the incidence he is not entitled to claim the duty excess paid. It is for this reason that the Section provides for a buyer, who has borne the incidence of such duty, file a claim for refund of duty. It also stipulates as to the time limit up to which he can make a claim for refund. The claim can be made even by a last ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
