9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visional assessment of the clearances made by them. For the months of April, 1991, May and June, 1991, RT-12 Return filed by the appellant were finally assessed by the Supdt. of Central Excise and the Supdt. on such assessment directed the appellants to take credit of excess duty paid by them during these 3 months. The appellant availed the credit in PLA as directed by the Supdt. The Revenue being aggrieved by such direction in the RT-12 Return issued 2 separate show cause notices to the appellant, one for the period April, 91 (which is in dispute today before me) and, another for the period May and June, 1991. In the show cause notice the appellant was directed to show cause, as to why such refund should not be recovered from him on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent which have attained the finality. Third point which he raises is that for the period May and June, 1991 an identical show cause notice was issued for recovery of erroneous refund granted on final assessment of RT-12 Return, which was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority against the appellant but, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the appellant on the ground that provisions of Rule 173-I, as stood at the material time, was self contained rule and, refund of excess duty can be allowed on the assessment itself and, it is his submission that against this order of the Commissioner, the Revenue has not filed any appeal and it has attained the finality between the parties. He relies upon the decision of the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the provisions of Rule 173-I are applicable in this case, the said rule clearly indicates that the proper officer shall grant the assessee the credit in account current for the excess payment made by the assessee on assessment. This order was not challenged by the Revenue for the reasons known to them. If an issue which is raised between the parties for a period which is subsequent to the period in the case before me the Revenue is precluded from raising the issue against the assessee. This law has been well settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in many cases and os correctly pointed out by the learned Consultant in the case of Leader Engg. Works (supra). I may read the same :- 8. By Order dated 17th January, 1999 in the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
