9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i K.J. Sanchej, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 19-7-04 which, on the second round of litigation dismissed the appeal of the appellant against rejection of refund claim of Rs. 68,247/-. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant's factory was visited by the Preventive staff on 14-12-98 and they direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority Revenue preferred appeal against the order-in-appeal which was dismissed by Tribunal. In the de novo proceedings, lower authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held against the appellants. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the amount of Rs. 68,247/- was debited by the appellants on 14-12-98 is retained by the Department without any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mills as reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.). 5. Considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the records. It is not disputed that the amount reversed by the appellant on 14-12-98 was under the instructions of Preventive Officer of the Central Excise Division, who visited the factory premises of the appellant. It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs. 68,24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been levied is found to be unconstitutional for violation of any of the constitutional limitations. This is a situation not contemplated by the Act. The Act does not contemplate any of its provisions being declared constitutional and therefore it does not provide for its consequences. Rule 11 / Section 11B are premised upon the supposition that the provisions of the Act are good and valid. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount is ultimately due to him but was collected by the authorities without any authority of law. 7. Further I also find that the appellant had on 19-3-99 claimed the recredit of amount to which the authorities did not respond. If the authorities were to respond to the letter of 19-3-99, the appellant would have got the credit of amount of Rs. 68,247/- on that date itself. 8. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
