9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 1944)? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 11B(3) of the Act mean that an order-in-appeal passed under the Act in respect of claims made on behalf of one licensed unit situated in a separate Central Excise Jurisdiction will automatically entitle another licensed unit in another Excise Jurisdiction to a refund without having to make a separate claim for the same? 2. The bare necessary facts for appreciation of the claim and the questions referred for our consideration are that the appellant manufacturers, had filed five refund claims for a total sum of Rs. 5,19,541.20 on two dates, namely, 29-8-1991 (sic) and 19-9-1991 (sic) relating to the years 1977 to 1981. The said claims appear to be in respect of certain items manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... need to make fresh application. It has to be pointed out even at this stage that the proceedings of the Board relied upon is in respect of an appeal from an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, in respect of the manufacturing unit of the applicant - concern, situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The learned Counsel sought to place reliance upon the decision in Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1988 (36) E.L.T. 38] and the decision in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981 (8) E.L.T. 468]. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that reliance was placed by the Tribunal on the decision of a Five Member Bench of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to automatically entitle to applicant to refund in respect of the transactions or duty paid by a different unit situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, even without a formal or required applicant for refund in terms of the relevant provisions of law governing the claim for refund. Therefore, it cannot be legitimately claimed that even in the absence of a regular application for refund automatically the applicant became entitled to refund without preferring a separate claim for the same in accordance with law. So far as the question as to whether the law applicable to a claim for refund is the one prevailing at the time of making of the claim (Section 11B of the Act in the present case) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
