9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent herein) was within time and directing the same to be considered on the merits in accordance with law. 2. The respondent is the Proprietor of Royal Smiths, Kunnamkulam, engaged in the manufacture of steel furniture. Between 2-4-1969 and 24-9-1969 he had cleared steel furniture whose total value came to Rs. 1,44,241.50. In accordance with the terms of Ext. P1 notification which we shall presently notice, he filed an application for refund of the duty self-addressed and paid by him. The application was preferred on 29-3-1971. Ext. P2 notice dated 22-7-1972 was issued to him to show cause why the application should not be rejected as beyond time under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules. It was accordingly rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from, duty; and Rule 173J occurs in Chapter VII-A dealing with removal of excisable goods on determination of duty by producers, manufacturers or private warehouse licensees. This chapter provides for the method of self-assessment and return by the persons concerned, and clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so self-assessed. We may now notice Ext. P1 notification which granted the exemption and which was the basis of the application for refund of duty preferred by the writ petitioner. The same is as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts steel furniture falling under Item No. 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application for refund of excise duty, can having regard to the terms of Ext. P1 notification, be preferred only in respect of steel furniture whose total value does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- and that too, only if the total value of the furniture removed in the course of the year does not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs. It was argued that whether the limit of two lakhs had been exceeded or not, would be known only at the close of the year in question; and therefore, to insist on an application for refund or exemption being made with reference to the earlier point of time in the year on the mere ground that the duty had been paid during that period, would be inequitable and unjust; and would oblige the writ petitioner to make an application for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause of action had arisen and whether the period of limitation can be said to run even while there is no person to sue. These would take us to a region of law into which it is unnecessary to enter for the purpose of this case. We think the plain provisions of the Rule must be given effect to; and on the terms thereof, the writ petitioner's application for refund must be found to have been preferred beyond time. The view taken by the Assistant Collector, in his order dated 13-11-1972, and by the Appellate Collector in Ext. P4 order, and the revisional authority in Ext. P6 order, was correct, and the learned Judge was wrong in interfering with the same. We allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that O.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
