9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el waives service of rule. At the request of both the sides, we take up the matter for final disposal. 2. The petitioners have challenged the communication dated 10th January, 2003, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Division I, Ankleshwar, by which the refund claim application which was made by the petitioner was returned with an observation that the relevant dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id by them. The petitioner paid the duty at a price higher than the price prevailed at their depots at the time of the clearance of their goods from the factory as per their claims. 3. The applications show that they were made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under Section 11B of the Act, any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such application. By the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner adopted a novel procedure of returning the claim application which is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. By returning the application claiming refund under Section 11B which was already filed in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, the officer acted contrary to the provisions of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse adopted by the Assistant Commissioner, of returning the claim application without making an order thereon amounts to refusal to perform the statutory duty imposed on him to consider the application and make an order thereof, in accordance with law. 4. The impugned order returning the application of the petitioners for refund of claim is, therefore, illegal and void and is liable to be set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
