9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of India arises out of the following facts : The petitioner is a partnership firm and carries on business of manufacture and sale of metal containers covered under Item 46 of Central Excise Tariff and as such is an assessee for the purpose of the Central Excise. The petitioner cleared the goods between 1-4-1976 and 29-4-1976 on nil duty claiming exemption from duty under Notification No. 97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... `A') to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the said amount of Rs. 8,547.45 refunded to the petitioner should not be recovered from him because it was erroneously refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner should cause and contended that the refund was rightly granted to it and there was no legal ground for recovering the said amount from the petitioner. By order dated 14-12-1981 (Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 8,547.45 paid by the petitioner as excise duty between the said period was liable to be refunded to it. However, it is contended in the return that as the petitioner did not apply for refund of the excise duty before the expiry of six months from the payment thereof the refund was erroneously granted to the petitioner and, therefore, the notice (Annexure`A') was properly issued to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty which was not liable to be paid by it after the decision of the earlier show cause notice in which it was held that the petitioner was exempt from duty under the Notification No. 97/70. All the facts were known to the respondent No. 2 when he passed the order for the refund of the amount of Rs. 8,547.45 which was paid by the petitioner as excise duty between 10-5-1976 and 8-11-1976. In the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, liable to be quashed. 5. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The Notice No. 7861/10-1/80/C-12977, dated 3-3-1981 (Annexure `A') issued by the respondent No. 2 and subsequent proceedings taken by him thereunder, as also the Order No. C. No. V(46)13-1/80/CI-16/63, dated 14-12-1981 (Annexure `C') passed by the respondent No. 2 are quashed. In the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
