9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner rejecting the appellant's refund claim for Rs. 43,455/- out of the total claim of Rs. 72,000/-. The aforesaid amount was paid under the scheme of compounded levy towards discharge of duty liability for the months Sept. 95 to Nov. 95. The payment was made on TR6 challans dated 22-8-95, 28-9-95 and 14-11-96. On account of disconnection of electric supply, there was no production and hence the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to which the sum payable happens to be in excess of the revised duty liability. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. It seems that, the most fundamental thing that is missed out is the fact that provisions of Section 11B are applicable for claiming refund of duty. The duty has to be with reference to the excisable goods manufactured and cleared. The amount, the payment details of which ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, when the latter part of the rule talks about revised liability. 7. Since the Asstt. Commissioner has already sanctioned the part claim, there is no dispute about the refundability of the amount. Consequently in the light of discussions above I hold that, orders of the lower authorities in rejecting the part claim are required to be set aside. 8. Hence I allow the appeal and order of the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
