9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;With reference to the clearances from the two Tea Estates (Dooria Tea Estate and Gorunga Tea Estate) the appellants claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 161/75-C.E., dated 1-7-1975, as amended by Notification No. 133/76-C.E., dated 26-3-1976. The applications for determination of the eligibility for the concessional rates, in terms of the provisions of the notification, had been made on 21-10-1976 and 5-11-1976 respectively and orders of the Assistant Collector concerned in this regard were passed on 6-4-1977 and 19-3-1982 respectively. Thereafter applications for refund were made on 21-4-1977 and 20-5-1982 respectively. Both applications were rejected by the respective Assistant Collectors on the basis of ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmination of eligibility for concessional rate of duty is to be made by the concerned Central Excise Officer on an application by the party and it is only after such determination that any refund of excise duty could be claimed, it is the date of the application for fixation of the basic figures that would be relevant as the date on which a claim for refund could be said to have been staked. It had been held that therefore though the actual refund applications may be beyond the period of limitation as calculated from the date of payment of duty the refund applications will have to be disposed of not with reference to the said date of actual application for refund but with reference to the date of the application for fixation of base figures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed after determination of the base figures by the concerned Assistant Collector. We therefore hold that in the present appeals also it will be the date of receipt in the concerned Assistant Collector's office of the appellants letters dated 21-10-1976 and 5-11-1976 that would be relevant on the question of limitation with reference to the refund applications subsequently made. The period of limitation at the relevant time was one year. We therefore hold that in respect of both refund applications the same will have to be allowed for the period of one year preceding the dates on which the applications dated 21-10-1976 and 5-11-1976 had been respectively received in the office of the concerned Assistant Collector. The periods for which refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
