9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and examined the records of the case and have also taken note of the submissions made during the personal hearing. 2. The background of this case is that the petitioners are a manufacturer of Sealed Compressors assessable to duty under Tariff item 29A(3) of Central Excise Tariff. In respect of these compressors in the manufacture of which duty paid stators and rotors are used there was a pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing but stators and rotors, and the concessions provided in regard to stators and rotors are equally applicable to 'Harmatic Motors'. Subsequent to the orders of the Government of India the petitioners requested on or about 24-6-69 for refund to be granted to them for the back period. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the part of the refund claim which was within the time limit under the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment of India's order-in-revision No. 9 31/69 the Government merely accepted the petitioners contention that 'Harmatic Motors' were but nothing stators and rotors and the concession in regard to the stators and rotors are equally applicable to 'Harmatic Motors'. This did not constitute an authority for sanction of the petitioner's claim for refund for the back period by the Assistant Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the time limit prescribed. Government do not agree with the petitioners contentions that the time limit under the General Limitation Act would be applicable and not the time limit under the Central Excise Rules. If the petitioners did not claim the benefit of a notification it would amount to error on their part and the time limit under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules is clearly applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
