9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sential oil and operated six oil expellers and one solvent extraction plant. This factory paid Central Excise Duty under simplified procedure till 1-3-1960. This procedure was called "Standard Procedure", The Government of India vide Notifications No. 33 of 60 and 34 of 60 dated 20-2-1960 introduced certain changes in the existing rules for payment of Central Excise Duty at compounded rates in respect of vegetable non-essential oils for certain categories of manufactures. The factory vide its communication dated 1-3-1960, opted for the revised compounded levy system. This procedure was known as a 'Special procedure'. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Indore granted permission on 7-3-1960 to be operative for six calendar months from March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund of Rs. 18,266.67. The appellants resisted the claim and pleaded that under Section 10 of the Central Excise Act, the appellants had requisite power to withdraw the permission and that the suit was barred by time in view of Section 40(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On evaluation of evidence, the trial court decreed the suit as above. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the appellants have preferred this first appeal. 3. I have heard Shri Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Brijesh Pandya learned counsel for official Liquidator, Indore. None appeared for the respondent No. 1. 4. The appellant. Union of India and Collector, Central Excise are aggrieved by the decree directing them to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33.50 being payable minus Rs. 11,860.67 already paid plus Rs. 194) under protest on 21-2-1961. An appeal, preferred against this, before the Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur, also failed on 15-5-1961. The revision was also rejected by the Ministry of Finance on 7-4-1962. And review petition also met the same fate on 1-6-1962. The respondent No. 1, thereafter, claimed a refund of Rs. 18,266.67 (Rs. 14,766.83 paid under protest plus Rs. 3499.84 paid under the levy system) mainly on the ground that, having accepted the option to switch over to the special procedure, the authority was not competent to cancel the permission in this arbitrary and mala fide manner. Shelter was taken under Rule 96 of the Central Excise Rules. The eligibility on fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack is non meritorious and deserves to be repelled. There is no misappreciation or misapplication of the provisions of the law. 11. As to the second submission, I find that such an argument is one of despair. The effort was to go under the protective umbrella of Sec. 40(2) of the Central Excise Act shrinking the period of limitation to six months from the date of accrual of cause of action. The review petition was rejected on 2-6-1962. Further, period of two months is available due to statutory notice under S. 80 of the Code. The suit was filed on 10-6-1963. As held, nothing was done in terms of Sec. 40(2) of the Act. As such, the suit was rightly held to be within limitation. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court held in Ramrao's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
