9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der notification 71/78 have claimed the refund at the close of the year. 3. The appellants in the appeal memorandum dated 21-6-1980 stated that the computation for eligibility of exemption can be done only at the close of the year and six months period would commence from the end of the financial year. In support of their contention the appellants quoted order No. 760/1976 dated 22-9-1979 passed by the Additional Secretary, Government of India in Revision Application dated 25-11-1977 filed by M/s. Santosh Biscuits Co. (Pvt) Ltd., Calcutta. [1980 CENCUS 109 D (GOI)]. 4. The appellants also filed another appeal bearing this office No. V.2(49) 1922/80 on a similar issue. The issue in this appeal is that the appellants have filed a refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all prevail. 8. Since the legal right to exemption or refund did not accrue before the close of the year, the said payment of duty should be considered as provisional. It has been held by Bombay High Court, Once the Government of India has given a finding on a contention raised before it, it is binding upon the subordinate authorities in subsequent proceedings unless some other material is brought to their notice to take a contrary view.-1980 E.L.T. 274 (Bom). The Hon ble Supreme Court has also observed, Subordinate authorities cannot refuse to implement a revisionary order by contending that it is illegal nor is it open to them to urge such a contention at the time of implementation AIR 1961 S.C. 182 cited at - 1978 E.L.T. J-652. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce approved earlier, yet the appellants had to file fresh declaration, since some mathematical inaccuracies were found in the calculation for base clearance and therefore a new figure for base clearance was approved again later. As the question of refund depended on the fixation of base clearance, the period of limitation for the same was decided to run from the date of subsequent approval of base clearance and not from the date of payment of duty. The claim, was therefore not time barred-reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 476 (Tribunal). 10. The Hon ble Tribunal has decided in the case that the period of limitation of 6 months in respect of production incentive should be calculated from the date of approval of base clearance and not the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
