9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has made an application before the appropriate authority for the refund of the amount on 27-8-1982. 3.It is contended that the excess amount has been deposited in between the period 1-3-1975 and 28-2-1978. However, the petitioner acquired knowledge that under the mistaken notion of law it has deposited the amount in excess and the same is liable to be refunded to it only after the judgment passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, dated 3-10-1981 in M/s Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad, U.P., which is reported in 1981 ECR 596 and in another case of Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd. dated 31-10-1981 whereby the excess amount realised from the assessee was directed to be refunded to them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, it envisages that excess payment made is liable to be refunded provided if the refund application is made within a period of six months. Thus, if the application is made within the stipulated period, the department is obliged to pass necessary orders for refund. 7.In Mafatlal case (supra) while dealing with the issue of refund, their Lordships have held that the provisions of Section 17(1)(C) of the Limitation Act will also be made applicable. This provision manifests that from the date of knowledge the application can be made and the limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act, referred to above, will begin from the date of knowledge. 8.The petitioner claims that it acquired knowledge from the above refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have no jurisdiction to retain the amount of excess payment which is without sanction of law. This submission indeed has got substance but our difficulty is proviso to Section 11B of the Act as six months' period is made applicable for filing the refund application. Even in Mafatlal case (supra) the period of limitation has been dealt with and it is observed that the application for refund if made within the limitation period, the same is liable to be considered for refund of payment. Since in the instant case the application for refund has not been filed within the period of limitation, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition. 13.Thus, from the foregoing discussion, this petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
