9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ively refusing to refund the excise duty paid by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of iron and steel products. Between the period March 1966 and August 1967 the petitioner firm manufactured flat products of the thickness between 5 mms. and 10 mms. and of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erential duty. Another quantity of similar products was cleared between 2nd June, 1967 and 19th August, 1967 the petitioner paid Rs. 3,289.22 as differential duty. The petitioner firm paid this duty under protest which was noted on the AR 1 form. By a trade notice dated 22nd June, 1967 issued by the Collectorate of Central Excise, Calcutta and Orissa, it was clarified that the flats having thickne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner firm was entitled to get the refund of the duty paid by them and whether the petitioner could take advantage of the trade notice dated 22nd June, 1967. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could apply for refund only after the trade notice was issued and the time of three months should be ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd June, 1967 the refund applications which were made on 26th August, 1967 were within the time prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner could not have made the application till the position had been clarified. In any event Govt. should not stand on technicalities and refuse the legitimate claim of its citizens. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
