9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Division, Ratlam/respondent No. 1 whereby the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise Division, has rejected the claims of the petitioner of the refund of the excess duty paid by the petitioner over and above the exemption notification issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are thus : The petitioner M/s. Supreme Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Sejwaya, is a manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere to be charged duty at 75% of such duty, by Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 as amended by Notification No. 133/83, dated 24-4-1983. It is alleged that since the petitioner was not aware of the above notification, petitioner paid duty on its products at the full rate, i.e., basic of 10% and also special duty 5% of basic duty for the entire year. Therefore, the petitioner filed a claim pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edy. 4. It is true that we would have certainly upheld this objection and dismissed the petition but that petition remained pending here since 1987 before this Court; therefore, the dismissal of this petition on this ground will not be proper exercise of jurisdiction. Apart from this, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner has bonafidely paid the duty more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
