9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants are aggrieved of rejection of their refund claim for ₹ 3401.60 by both the lower authorities. 2. Brief facts of the case, which are not disputed, are as follows. The appellants were a powerloom unit without spinning or processing plant. They were permitted to discharge their duty liability in respect of unprocessed cotton fabrics produced by them under the special procedure known a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abrics produced on powerlooms was abolished, vide exemption Notification No. 134/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977. In view of this full exemption, Rules 96I to 96MMMMM became redundant and they were deleted by Notification No. 146/77-C.E. issued simultaneously on 18-6-1977. This notification contained a saving clause which read as under :- 3. The omission of any rule or sub-rule made by rule 2 shall n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants claim as time-barred under Rule 11, as the claim was lodged for the first time after the expiry of six months from the date on which the duty was exempted . On that assumption, the Appellate Collector held the Assistant Collector s order as correct and rejected the appellants appeal. 3. Before us, the Department s Representative reiterated the grounds taken by the Asstt. Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case before us, when the duty itself was withdrawn by the Government, the advance payment already made by the appellants, in so far as it related to the period subsequent to the withdrawal of duty, could not be treated as duty; it was only a deposit held with the Government and it ought to have been refunded as such. We find no force in the two grounds on which the Asstt. Collector rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
