9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le and that the other part could not be repaid on account of expiry of limitation under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act or Section 27(c) of the Customs Act? Held that:- This court is of the opinion that the CESTAT clearly fell into error - In the present case, levy never applied, a fact conceded by no less than the authority of CBEC - Krishna Carbon Paper Co. [1988 (9) TMI 50 - SUPREME COU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was refundable and that the other part could not be repaid on account of expiry of limitation under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act or Section 27(c) of the Customs Act." 2. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal is finally heard today. 3. The appellant is a registered society set up by Ministry of Finance, Planning Commission, several State Governments and disting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.). 5. Counsel for the assessee contends that when the amount in question was never payable as there was no levy at all, the question of denying the refund of part payment did not arise and that the general principal of limitation will be applicable from the date of discovery of mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a notification which was later discovered to be not correct. In the present case, levy never applied - a fact conceded by no less than the authority of CBEC. In these circumstances, the general principle alluded to in Krishna Carbon Paper Co. (supra) would apply. Consequently, the appeal has to succeed and is therefore allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of entire amount with propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
