9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of specified types of cutting tools cleared by or on behalf of a manufacturer up to a value of rupees one lakh in each financial year subject to the condition, infer alia, that the total value of such cutting tools cleared by the said manufacturer during the same financial year did not exceed rupees two lakhs. The refund claim of the appellants related to the financial year 1975-76. It is their case that they could know only on 31-3-1976 as to whether their total clearances in the financial year had or had not exceeded the ceiling limit of rupees two lakhs. Consequently, the fact whether they were entitled to the exemption or not could be known to them only on 31-3-1976 and not earlier. They filed their refund claim on 17-2-1977. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in appeal by the Division Bench of the same High Court [vide 1983 E.L.T. 2156 (Kerala)] and the Division Bench had held that the limitation of Rule 11 applied from the date of payment of duty, as laid down in the Rule itself, and not from the close of the financial year. He stated that the appellants should either have filed a refund claim each time they paid duty at normal rates or they should have paid duty under protest or under provisional assessment procedure. Since they had not done any such thing, he argued, their claim was time-barred. Regarding the non-applicability of Rule 11, the Department s Representative referred to the statement of clearances of the appellants and maintained that the appellants had planned in advance not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o fulfilment of certain conditions one of which was that the total value of the manufacturer s clearances in the same financial year should not exceed rupees two lakhs. Whether a manufacturer fulfilled this condition or not could be known for sure only at the close of the financial year when the aggregate value of clearances during that year would be available. It may be that the appellants had so planned their clearances as not to cross the ceiling limit during 1975-76. But all that this planning gave them was an expectation that they would be able to avail of the exemption in the form of refund of duty. Their actual entitlement to exemption or refund could, however, be known only on 31-3-1976. Since their legal right to exemption or refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Bangalore, in Writ Petition Nos. 1730 and 1731/1967 in the case of Messrs Gouri Shankar Silk Weaving Factory another v. Union of India others. In this case, the petitioners had paid excise duty on silk fabrics during the period 20th April, 1961 to 31st August, 1962. According to them, no duty was chargeable on the pure silk fabrics in respect of four looms that were exempt under the relevant Government. orders. The petitioners made an application for refund on 7th March, 1963. The departmental authorities rejected the petitioners claim on the ground that it was time-barred under Rule 11. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of mandamus. By their judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
