9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing them from the period 5-12-1970 to 28-2-1974 on payment of duty. On the basis of the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 18-1-1974 in the case of M/s. Bansal Steel Sons and Co. v. Union of India, whereby the High Court held that no Central Excise duty was payable on iron and steel products made out of cut or broken ingots but not rolled, falling under Sub-item (1a) of Item 26AA of Central Excise Tariff as the exemption envisaged under Notification 205/63, dated 30-11-1963 was available to both heavy and small ingots, the party preferred a refund claim on 12-6-1974 for an amount of duty which was paid on clearances between 5-12-1970 and 28-2-1974. The Asstt. Collector allowed such of the refund claims as were filed within the time-limit u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim for refund thereof is, therefore, governed by Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the claim was received in the office of the Asstt. Collector on 12-6-1974 the claim relating to clearances from 4-12-1972 to 12-6-1973 was barred by limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In view of the specific time-limit laid down under Central Excise Law it was felt that the party could not take resorts to the general law of limitation and claim refund within a period of three years from the date of the High Court judgment. A show cause notice for review of the Order-in-Appeal was accordingly issued. 4. In reply to show cause notice and at the t ime of personal hearing the party have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly different from inadvertence or misconstruction and such error is not synonymous with mistake. (3) When once it is established that duty in a particular case was paid under mistake of law, the time-limit has to be computed in terms of general law of limitation i.e. three years from the date of discovery of mistake which could be the date on which a particular judgment was delivered, giving a final decision in the matter. This principle was enunciated by the Supreme Court in their judgment of Civil Appeal Nos. 457/74, 477/74, 459/74, 476/74 in the case of Cowasji v. Union of India and another - [1978 E.L.T. (J 154)]. (4) It was observed in another Supreme Court judgment. Patel India v. Union of India that if the Customs Authorities are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... term "error" in taxation statute has been interpretated in a wider sense than calculation mistake or arithmetical error as held by the Patna High Court in Bata Shoe Company's case. lt is observed in this case that duty was paid on a wrong interpretation of law i. e. due to an "error" as in Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules and the question of any relief for "mistake of law" and allowing refund by taking resort to general law of limitation (which does not apply before quasi-judicial authority) does not arise at all. (3) The judgment mentioned by the party envisages a situation wherein tax was paid when it was not payable under the law. What is emphasised in the Supreme Court judgment in Patel India v. Union of India [A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1300] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
