1985 (10) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... April, 1971 to 10th September, 1971 irrespective of the provisions of Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The petitioner's case is that the duty at the rate of only 4% could be charged and not at the rate of 5%, which claim has been upheld but refund has not been allowed by the excise authorities. The petitioner has sought quashing of the orders Annexure 4, dated 8t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i.e., between 5% and 4% and he further observed that non-petitioner No. 1-Union of India was not right when it passed the order, dated April 6, 1978 declining the refund claim other than the claim for September, 1971 on the ground of limitation under Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained rejecting the pet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X