9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in re-rolling iron and steel products. These are excisable under Item 26-AA(la) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. A Notification dated 30th November, 1963 as amended by Notification 14th August, 1965, exempted from excise duty re-rolled steel products manufactured out of duty paid steel ingots. 3. During the period relevant to this Petition, the petitioners paid excise duty on the said products in the sum of Rs. 1,92,944/01 p. On 3rd February, 1973, the petitioners addressed a letter to the second respondent, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division VIII, Bombay, enquiring whether their products were exempted from payment of duty. On 26th February, 1973, the second respondent replied to the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of the respondents and for a direction that the excise duty amount of Rs. 1,92,944/01 p. be refunded to them. 6. Rule 11 of the Excise Duty Rules, as it then stood, stated that no duties or charges which had been paid or had been adjusted in an account current maintained with the Collector under Rule 9, and of which repayment wholly or in part was claimed in consequence of the same having been paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction, should be refunded unless the claimant made an application for such refund within three months from the date of such payment or adjustment. It is, however, an admitted position that, having regard to other rules, the period of limitation here was one year. It is also an admitted position t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Ors. - 1982 E.L.T. 237 (Bom.) = (1982) ECR 165D, in which Madon, J. commented as referred to by me earlier. 8. It was contended by Shri Lokur, learned counsel appearing for respondents, that this was not a case in which the respondents had recovered excise duty which they had no jurisdiction to do. This was a case where the petitioners had been exempted from payment of excise duty and it was upto the petitioners to claim or not to claim the exemption. If they chose not to claim it, it could not be said to be a recovery which was unlawful or in excess of jurisdiction. Such payment could only be said to have been made out of inadvertence or error or misconstruction and to such payment the provisions of Rule 11 and the period of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
