9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 30th of November, 1963, which was subsequently amended in 1965 and then in 1968. The Government vide these notifications exempted the following items from payment of whole of the excise duty leviable on such products :- "(i) fresh unused re-rolling scrap on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid. (ii) Semi-finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheets bars, tin and hoe bars on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid. (iii) Old and used re-rollable scrap; (iv) ingots, on which the appropriate amount of duty or excise has already been paid, cut or broken not rolled in any shape resembling the shape of any of the products referred to in sub-item (i) of this Item." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-7-1977, holding that this was a case in which the provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules would not be attracted. The provision of Indian Limitation Act was made applicable, holding that the application for refund was filed within three years from the date the mistake became known to the Unit. 8.Against that order, the Department went in revision before the Central Government under Section 36 of the Act. A notice was issued to the petitioner. A reply was filed by it. The Central Government allowed the revision on 29-4-1990 and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals). It held that the refund of such excise levy can be claimed by a manufacturer only during the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 11 read with Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, strenuously argued that the claim of the petitioner has become barred by limitation in view of Rule 11 and Rule 173-J of the 1944 Rules. He referred to a judgment reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 707 (Triveni Structurals Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise). But, on a careful reading of this Division Bench authority, we are of the view that it supports the case of the petitioner for refund of the money, wherein it has been held that even if we were to hold that the claim for refund having been preferred after six months was liable to be rejected, on the point of limitation if the excise duty had been paid under a mistake, the claim for refund is entitled to succeed and it could not be rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw married to justice, is ubi jus ibi remedium." 14.Another case referred to is reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) Sakuru v. Tanaji. In that case only this much was held that Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to proceedings before the Court and not to proceedings before the quasi-judicial Tribunals or the Executive authorities. But that is not an authority for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shiv Shanker Dal Mills (supra). 15.Reference has also been made to a case reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (Collector of C.E., Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills). In that case, it was held that :- "When the duty has been levied without the authority of law o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
