9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri C. Chidambaram, Representative of the appellants and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal make the following : ORDER 3. The appellants had filed five refund claims for a total amount of ₹ 5,19,541.20 on two dates namely 29-8-81 and 19-9-1981 relating to the years 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. These claims were in respect of certain items manufactured by the appellant claimed to be classifiable under Item 26AA(iv) (exempt from payment of duty) but classified under Item 68, Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras VII Division, by his Order C. No. V/26AA/18/10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty; in terms of this order the appellant becomes entitled to payment of refund; and he does not have to make any fresh application. In this connection, he also referred to certain decisions of the High Courts and of the Tribunal itself. (iii) Before part of the refund claim was rejected, no notice was issued stating the reasons for such rejection to enable the appellant to explain his stand. Though this aspect is referred to in the order of the Collector (Appeals), it does not meet the case of the appellant fully. That there was a discussion between an officer of the appellant's firm and the Assistant Collector does not obviate the need for the issue of such notice. 5. The Senior Departmental Representative on the other hand, urge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ronouncements of the various High Courts and of the Supreme Court and have come to the conclusion that law of limitation is procedural and operates retrospectively; and the law that applies is the one prevailing on the date when the relief is claimed. Following the principles enunciated in this judgment of the larger Bench of this Tribunal, the correct law to be applied in respect of the claims in the present case would be the one in force at the time of making of the claim namely, Section 11B. 7. The plea that the provisions of Section 11 B(3) would apply to the facts of this case is not acceptable either. The order of the Board is in respect of an appeal from M/s. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd. against order No. 26AA(3)78-Collr./ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, provides for the issue of a notice to the person chargeable, with duty, considering the representation, if any, made by him and then determining his liability. This is understandable as it is the Department that makes the claim for duty and has to explain why a particular sum is due to it, if the assessee has any points to urge in his favour he is certainly to be heard on these points. The situation in the case of a refund claim is just the reverse. If any notice is to be given it is the assessee who is claiming refund who has to do; he has to state why a particular amount is refundable to him. This, he does by the filing of a refund claim in which it is expected that he would explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
