9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 564/- said to have been paid in excess for the period 9-11-1982 to 7-11-1985 in respect of poster paper manufactured by the petitioner. By a letter dated 18-6-1986 addressed to the third respondent, the petitioner sought for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act on the ground of mistaken payment. Such refund claim related to the period 9-5-1985 to 7-11-1985. The amount specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to the period 9-5-1985 to 7-11-1985 only. The petitioner, without filing further appeal to the Tribunal, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 seeking refund not only for the period specified in the refund claim application but also for the anterior period. The claim of the petitioner, in effect, is based on the general law and the limitation provided for under the law of Limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of six months, which is the limitation prescribed by the first proviso to Section 11-B. The learned Counsel, however, falls back on the letter dated 8-11-1985 in order to buttress his argument that the claim was within the period of limitation. But, that letter cannot be construed as a claim for refund. As rightly pointed out by the adjudicatory and appellate authorities, in the said letter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period, the question of paying duty under protest does not arise as, according to the petitioner, the mistake was realized only subsequently. Therefore, the second proviso to section 11-B does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 4. Above all, there is no specific averment nor material placed before us that the disputed duty was not passed on to the buyers. The presumption is that as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
