9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er claimed refund of excise duty of Rs. 24,940.22 ps, (Rs. 24,760.41 ps. as basic duty plus Rs. 179.81 ps. special duty). It was contended by the petitioner that the base period for fixing clearance was year 1975-76 and the petitioner started manufacturing from May, 1977. Therefore the clearance during 1976-77 was nil and hence for the clearance made during May 14, 1977 to March 31, 1978, petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rules framed thereunder. The refund claim was in respect of the period commencing from May 14, 1977 to March 31, 1978. Even if March 31, 1978 is taken as the last date of payment of the excise duty, the period of limitation (six months from the date of payment of duty) would expire on September 30, 1978. In this case, the application for refund has been submitted on April 2, 1979. Thus evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions laid down in the notification and that the petitioner was entitled to claim exemption benefits flowing from the notification. Therefore, it cannot be said that even on merits the petitioner had a good case and the case of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. 5. The exemption Notification No. 198/76 dated June 16,1976, which requires the fixation of base period, pre-supposes that dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the department ought not to have recovered duty from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner paid duty due to ignorance of law and therefore it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to seek the refund of the amount in question. 7. Ignorance of law cannot be equated with mistake of law. Ignorance of law and mistake of law are two different things. Erroneous belief or opini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffered injury. If, in the facts of the case it is found that on account of such mistake, someone else has suffered injury, the petitioner cannot claim restitution. In the instant case there is no averment as to the fact that the petitioner has suffered injury on account of the mistake and that if restitution is not granted there would be injustice to the petitioner. Therefore on this ground also, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
