9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duties of customs (under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975) amounting to Rs. 57,80,183/- equivalent to the excise duty payable under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. 2.On 18-12-1986 this Hon'ble Court by a judgment and order in the matter of Raman K. Bhandari - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 617 (Bom.) (This judgment was ultimately upheld by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in 1990 (29) ECC 152 (Bom.) held that non-potable industrial alcohol was not liable to pay additional duty of customs. On the rendering of the aforesaid decision the petitioner realised its mistake and filed refund applications on 3-3-1987 and 24-3-1987 with the Assistant Collector of [Central] Excise. 3.There was no response to the refund applications from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 can be granted or not. It was held that it cannot be granted particularly after 20th September, 1991 in view of amending Act 40 of 1991. Section 27 of Customs Act is pari materia same as Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 7.It was inter alia held by the Division Bench in Pfizer Ltd. & Ors. case that for getting benefit of the exemption notification it is for the assessee to establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the said exemption notification. Further, it is also held that assessee has to establish that the conditions which are stipulated in the exemption notification are complied with by him and there is no question of any liberal construction to exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in the proceeding which emanated for levy of duty the order became final and without having that order set aside by a competent Court there would be no question of grant of refund merely on the ground that in some other case a different view was taken, even if the payment is made under mistake of law. As long as the order which became final stands, the authority cannot grant refund. The Court further held that if the application is under Section 27 of the Customs Act, then the authority being a creation of the statute, must act within the ambit of that provision and if the application is delayed he has no alternative but to reject it as barred by limitation." 9.Further the question is also concluded by recent decision rendered by Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
