9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipt of the order. 2.The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly set-out to appreciate the grievance of the appellant. On March 1, 1986, new Central Excise Tariff Act came into force. The respondent-1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, and inter alia manufacture and sell food products. The respondent-1 filed classification list on March 17, 1986 and claimed that manufacture of food products falls within Tariff item no. 2001.10 of First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. The rate of duty was 10% ad valorem, in view of the exemption Notification No. 113/86. The classification list was approved on March 26, 1986. The respondent-1 company made first clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1986. 4.The Company feeling aggrieved, approached this Court by filing writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge held that the benefit of the provisions of the Act is available to the company and its claim for refund of duty paid could not have been denied. It was held that the duty was paid by the Company from April 12, 1986 and once the Act providing for retrospective exemption was available, the Department cannot decline to issue order of refund. The decision of the learned single Judge is under challenge. 5.Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the provisions of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, are not available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excise duty at the relevant time. In our judgment, the challenge to the claim made by the Company for refund cannot be accepted. 6.The learned Counsel for the Department finally submitted that the learned Judge was not right in directing the department to refund the amount and proper course would have been to remit the proceedings back to the Assistant Collector for ascertaining the amount of refund payable. It was also contended that in view of the amendment of the provisions of Sec. 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, it is necessary for the Assistant Collector to determine whether the refund should be paid to the company or the said amount should be credited to the fund. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. The As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
