9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said authorities held that the claim pertained to the,; period from 3-4-76 to 31-3-77 and since it was submitted on 19-4-78, mach beyond the time limit of six months, it was hit by the limitation. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Collector, the appellants filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, has been taken up as the subject appeal. 2. During the hearing before us today, the appellants relied on the following two orders of this Tribunal :- (1) 1983 E.L.T. 1274 (C.E.G.A.T.) - New Jatiaga Valley Tea Estates Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong. (2) 1983 E.L.T. 2426 (C.E.G.A.T.) - Neelamalai Tea/Coffee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When it was pointed out to him that there appeared to be no such stipulation in the notification, he came out with a new plea, made for the first time, that the appellants claim was not due to error, inadvertence or misconstruction and hence was not covered by Rule 11, meaning thereby that the appellants should have to file only a civil suit for pursuing their refund claim. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. In spite of our asking, neither side could give us the exact dates on which excess clearances took place in the appellants case. The lower orders mentioned the period of refund claim as 3-4-76 to 31-3-77. This appears to be incorrect for two reasons. First, it is inconceivable that within 3 days of the start of the financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for availing the exemption on that date and the limitation of Rule 11 should stop running against him on that date. We held further that subsequent quantification of the amount of refund, after the Assistant Collector had approved the base year and the base year clearances, was not material for the purpose of computing the limitation of Rule 11. We find no reason to treat the present appellants differently. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that the limitation stopped running against them on 17-5-77, the date on which they submitted their declaration to the Assistant Collector. Since their declaration had been submitted within one year of the period (1-7-76 to 31-3-77) during which they had paid duty at the normal higher rate, we ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
