9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1978 and rejecting it for the remaining period as time-barred; and (c) rejecting their claim for refund of duty pertaining to period 1-3-1978 to 15-3-1978 as time-barred. 2. The appellants are manufacturers (amongst other goods) or refractories, falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (hereafter the CET ). In the manufacture of these refractories they use duty paid dead burnt magnesite and sulphite tye, also falling under Item 68 of the CET. The Government of India by its Notification No. 178/77-CE, dated 18-6-1977 had exempted all excisable goods on which the duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his observation that they had lodged two claims on 28-7-1978 and the third claim on 29-9-1978 Actually they had approached the Deptt. and had also lodged their first two claims much earlier. He also submitted that the third claim was actually lodged on 29-7-1978 instead of 29-9-1978 as presumed by the Addl. Collector. 8. When asked about the periods to which these claims pertained, the Advocate was not very clear about the period. He was, therefore, asked to submit the correct details about the period to which the claims pertained and when these were lodged according to them along with the evidence therefor. 9. The Advocate has submitted the details along with the photostat copies of the various letters sent by them to the Deptt. b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngpur s letter dated 4-5-1978 seeking such information. 14. After careful consideration of the matter, the Board accepts the contention of the appellants that they had filed their claims for refund for the three periods in question on 28-1-1978, 18-3-1978 and 29-7-1978 and the information furnished by the two letters dated 28-7-1978 was in the nature of further information. 15. Thus, the Board finds that the refund claims for the period 1-12-1977 to 28-2-1978 and 1-3-1978 to 15-3-1978 were filed in time. 16. As regards the claim filed on 28-1-1978, it would not normally be admissible for the whole of the period from 18-6-1977 to 30-11-1977 to which it pertained. 17. In this regard however, the appellants have referred to the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
