9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Central Excise, Bangalore. The Collector of Central Excise issued a Trade Notice No. 14/71, dated 22-1-1971 informing the Trade that the Die-cast rotors are classifiable under T.I. No. 30(4) of C.E.T. The appellants had been classifying the goods under this item and paying appropriate duty. Subsequently, the Collector issued another Trade Notice No. 277/75, dated 12-12-1975 informing the trade that such die-cast rotors did not fall within the ambit of T.I. No. 30(4). The appellants then applied on 21-6-1976 to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, claiming a refund of ₹ 43,143.40 the amount paid by them as duty during the period 15-6-1970 to 4-12-1974. The Assistant Collector issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpreted. Under these circumstances, the refund of entire amount should have been granted. They also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in which they claimed that Supreme Court had laid down that an amount collected by the Government under mistake of law would have to be refunded within the prescribed legal limitation of 3 years of the discovery or knowledge of such mistake. 3. At the hearing, none appeared for the appellants. A communication dated 4-10-1983 was received from the appellants stating that they had forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court judgment on which they based their argument that refund claim within three years from the discovery or knowledge of the mistake in interpretation of Classification be the Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o suit by the Manager of a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of moveable or immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been transferred by a previous manager for a valuable consideration for which the period of limitation is 12 years from the time from which period begins to run, which is set out in column 3 of the Article. Clearly, this article would not be applicable in the case. We do not think that even Article 96 of Limitation Act, 1908, which according to Mitra s Limitation Act, 4th Edn., corresponds to Article 59 of the new Limitation Act, which reads To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract , or which the limitation is three years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government through the Trade [that assessment under Item 30(4) was wrong and this would mean that the appellants were aware of the correct position in law. Their contention that mistake of law came to be known only with the issue of Trade Notice, in view of the foregoing, is not acceptable. Besides, to get the benefit of sub-section (c) of Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963, it is not only that mistake is discovered, it is also stipulated that mistake could with reasonable diligence, have not been discovered. There is no material or pleadings on the point to show as to what steps were taken by the appellants in the direction. On the other hand, as already pointed out, material on record would show that the appellants long before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
