9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute was pending before the Appellate Forum, the appellants were paying higher rate of duty under protest. On receipt of the Tribunal's Order, all the RT-12 assessments, which were pending for approval, were assessed. While assessing the RT-12 returns, following remarks were made by the Superintendent on the same :- " As per the CEGAT's Order No.105/89 Dl, dated 1-8-1989, paid excess duty ....." Varied amount in different RT-12 returns came to some total of Rs.12,81,308.61. 2. The appellants approached the Department for refund of the excess duty paid by them during the period in question. They also filed Miscellaneous Applications before the Tribunal for implementation of the Tribunal's Order. The said applications were disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 returns, even though the quantum of duty excess paid by the appellants, was indicated, but no order was passed by the Superintendent directing the appellants to bake credit in their PLA. The Revenue's contention is that in the absence of any orders, it was the duty of the appellants to file a refund claim and not to take the credit of the excess paid duty as quantified in the RT-12 returns suo-moto. Shri Roy has relied upon a number of decisions of the various authorities in this respect. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri K.K. Banerjee, Ld. advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the simple question involved is as to whether in such type of situation, the appellant is entitled to credit the duty which has been paid by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Rule 173-I(2). This has been the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, BBSR v. Manishree Refractories Ceramics [1994 (73) E.L.T. 746 (Tribunal) and in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Jsr. v. Usha Beltron Ltd. [1999 (109) E.L.T. 1006 (Tribunal)] wherein it was held that no application for refund of the amount arising out of the finalisation of assessment is required to be made under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act which is inapplicable to credit or adjustment of excess payment under Rule 173-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. To the same effect, there is an another decision of the Tribunal reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 151 which has held taking of credit of excess duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
