9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. ORDER Notification No. 198/76-C.E. gave partial concession from Central excise duty to certain specified goods. This concession was in the nature of an incentive for higher production. Tea was one of the commodities eligible for this concession. The instructions issued by the Department required that the assessees desirous of availing of the concession should apply to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive rebate. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the claim. The Collector, however, initiated review proceedings, set aside the Asstt. Collector s order and rejected the appellants claim as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the claim filed on 12-2-1980 was beyond the prescribed time-limit of six months. 3. During the hearing before us today, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase period and base clearances by the Asstt. Collector were not statutory ones and could not , therefore, override the statutory provisions of Rule 11 and that it was open to the appellants to start paying duty under protest as soon as they felt that their excess clearances had started. But the appellants did not do so. Their refund claim was, therefore, correctly rejected as time-barred by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim. They could not even know as to when exactly their excess clearances would start. The Assistant Collector took time in giving his approval and soon thereafter they quantified the amount of the concession admissible to them and filed a specific refund claim. In such a setting, it has to be held that when the appellants applied to the Assistant Collector with the declaration of their ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
