9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim for Rs. 43,837.32 for the duty paid at the higher rate between 1st August 1974 and 27th September 1974. On 9th September 1975 the Superintendent, Central Excise, returned the refund claim as the 'same is not admissible'. 3. On 27th September 1976 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise passed an order in respect of the revised classification list filed by the petitioners and declined to grant the 1st petitioners the benefit of the exemption. The petitioners appealed. On 21st March 1977 the appeal was rejected. On 14th November 1977 the petitioners filed a revision application to the Central Government. 4. On 16th April 1981 Pendse J. decided a writ petition in which he held, according to the petitioners, that the product manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to withdraw the sum deposited upon the furnishing of a bank guarantee, which they have done. 9. The amount of Rs. 6,47,344.98 whose disallowance is disputed by the 1st petitioners is made up of the amounts of (a) Rs. 43,837.32, (b) Rs. 45,477.01 and Rs. 50,667.46 and (c) Rs. 5,07,363.19. 10. The amount of Rs. 43,837.32 is the claim for excess duty paid in August and September 1974. In the impugned order the Assistant Collector stated that there was no dispute prior to the filing of the classification list on 27th September 1974. Therefore, the claim for this amount was hit by limitation. 11. The Assistant Collector denied in the impugned order refund of excess duty paid in 1977 and 1978 to the extent of Rs. 45,477.01 and Rs. 50,667. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules and was within time. In the affidavit in reply of N.G. Shetty to the petitioners' Notice of Motion it is stated that it could not be taken for granted that such a claim had been filed, and Mr. Sethna, learned Counsel for the respondents, pointed it out. To the affidavit in re-joinder, however, are annexed photostat copies of the claim and of the Superintendent of Excise's letter returning the claim. The refund application for the period August-September 1974 was, therefore, made and the amount of Rs. 43,837.32 was erroneously disallowed. 14. In regard to the amount of Rs. 45,477.01, it is averred in the petition that the Assistant Collector by his own order dated 2nd April 1982 had held that the claim pertaining to the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the order of Rs. 36,75,721.51. The Assistant Collector by the impugned order granted a refund of Rs. 24,36,065.44. The question now is whether the Assistant Collector should not also have ordered refund of an amount of Rs. 6,47,344.98. In the circumstances, I do not see that this issue arises here. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside to the extent that it disallows refund in the sum of Rs. 6,47,344.98 and the respondents are directed to pay the sum to the petitioners. That sum was deposited in court and withdrawn by the 1st petitioners against a bank guarantee. The bank guarantee shall stand discharged after four weeks from today. The respondents shall pay to the petitioners the costs of the petition. 19. Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
