9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the order dated 10-9-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Division-III, Surat whereby the refund claim of the petitioner Company for Rs. 65,39,719.95 ps was rejected on the ground that the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay on 31-3-1986 in the case of M/s. Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd., is a specific order in favour of the said party only and it is not a final order as laid down in Section-35C(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and also on the ground that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation under Section-11B of the Act. 3. Similarly the Special Civil Application No. 3804 of 1988 is filed by the petitioner Company at the relevant time challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-10-1998 in Company Petition No. 149 of 1996. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of the Company. However, no steps were taken by the office of the Official Liquidator to file an appearance on behalf of the Official Liquidator. Mr. Y.V. Contractor, learned advocate originally appearing for the Company as well as its Director has appeared and submitted that attention of the Official Liquidator was drawn with regard to the pendency of these petitions and still no one has filed any appearance on behalf of the Official Liquidator. Be that as it may, after the Company went into liquidation no one is having any interest in the subject matter of these petitions. Even otherwise, considering the merits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 3 ADM/C.5/87/1743 10-8-1987 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 Rs. 96,87,863.01 4 ADM/C.5/87/1744 10-8-1987 1-4-1983 to 31-3-1984 Rs. 84,16,543.89 5 ADM/C.5/87/1745 10-8-1987 1-4-1984 to 31-3-1985 Rs. 1,21,46,474.91 Total Rs. 4,58,90,922.47 The Assistant Collector of Central Excise after issuing show cause notice and after hearing the petitioner rejected the applications for refund as per his order dated 12-4-1988, inter alia, on the ground that the said applications are barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. This order was straightway challenged in Special Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been rejected by resorting to the technical ground of limitation. 9. These two petitions were strongly opposed by the Excise Department and it was strongly urged that the refund claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs. It was contended on behalf of the Excise Department that the impugned order is an appealable order and appeal would lie before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The petitions are, therefore, premature and not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed. It was further contended that the petitioner was manufacturing paper based laminate sheets. The petitioner has classified the said product under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 15A(2) and the said classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were grossly barred by limitation and also suffered from delay, latches and acquiescences. The petitioner had not suffered any loss and hence there is no question to compensate the petitioner. It was further contended that the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay in the case of M/s. Viral Laminates Pvt. Ltd., is not a final order and the revenue had preferred Appeal before the CESTAT. It was also contended that merely because in the case of one party, the Collector has taken the particular view, the petitioner was not entitled to gets the benefit of that order unless the petitioner get an order in its favour. It was further contended that in case of M/s. Viral Lamintes Pvt. Ltd., the said Company had applied for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be dismissed. 10. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having gone through the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector in light of the statutory provisions and decided case law on the subject, we are of the view that the orders impugned do not call for any interference by this Court. Even on earlier occasion this Court has at length discussed the entire issue on merits and dismissed the petitions. The Court is of the view that for the purpose of claiming refund the petitioner cannot rely upon the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) when the facts are totally different. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had paid the excise duty voluntarily and cleared th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
