1991 (7) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... their factory at Saki Vihar Lake Road, Bombay-400 072. The items manufactured by the petitioners were liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item 15(A) (2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Finance Bill, 1975 introduced Tariff Item No. 68, which is residuary item, to the First Schedule of the Act and thereupon the Department claimed that the duty on mould .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ved show cause notice upon the petitioners to explain why the claim for refund for the period between March 1, 1977 and June 30, 1978 should not be rejected on the ground of claim being made beyond period of limitation. The petitioners gave reply to the show cause notice but the Assistant Collector by order dated August 2, 1980 rejected the claim as barred by limitation as prescribed under Rule 11 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cannot resist refund of payment of duty recovered without any authority of law. The Assistant Collector found that the duty recovered from the petitioners by resort to Tariff Item 68 was not in accordance with law and the petitioners were entitled to refund of excess duty paid. In our judgment, the order passed by the Assistant Collector refusing refund on the ground of limitation cannot be susta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X