9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring. 2. In this case, the petitioners are manufacturers of acrylic tops and had been paying duty on the said goods under Tariff Item No. 68 for the period from 19-6-1975 to 31-3-1977. Subsequently, they learnt that the correct classification of the acrylic tops was under Tariff Item 18, Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 68, Central Excise Tariff and thereupon they filed refund claim on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the Asstt. Collector was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Collector in rejecting the petitioner s appeal. 4. In the revision application the petitioners, inter alia, have contended that duty on acrylic tops was paid under tariff item 68 under a mistake of law and therefore the time limit stipulated under the Central Excise Rules should not apply to the refund of the amount so paid as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect classification only when the Central Board of Excise Customs issued some clarification regarding classification of the impugned goods to the effect that the same was covered under item 18 and not under item 68, Central Excise Tariff. The advocate also contended that in the instant case the refund of the amount of duty should be governed by the Limitation contemplated in the Limitation Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case in which the acrylic tops, which were charged to duty under Item 68, Central Excise Tariff due to a mistaken interpetation of the scope of Item 68, Central Excise Tariff, were made out of acrylic fibre which had already borne the burden of duty under item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff. Since it is now an admitted fact that both the fibre and the tops are classifiable under Item 18, Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
