TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dated 27-11-1982. The Appellants brought two K-30 x 110 Ammonia Compressors bearing Serial Mos. 830326 and 830332, falling under Tariff Item 29A(3), from M/s. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd., Pune, on payment of full duty under regular Gate passes. On 20-1-1979 the Appellants lodged a claim for refund of Rs. 33,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Mrs. Zutshi, S.D.R., for the Department. 3. In the grounds of appeal, the Appellants have urged that the procedure under Chapter X was not a must and the benefit of the exemption could not be denied to the appellants. The emphasis was laid on the words As far as may be appearing in the notification. The Appellants urged that a consumer was entitled to refund and placed reliance on the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant must give information on the various particulars and matters referred to in Section 46, in so far as those requirements apply to him and in respect of which it is possible to give information [The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service, Warora (1971) 71 BOM L.R. (S.C.) 85 at p. 90]. The term as far as may be cannot be construed as a total abdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learances. It is far-fetched to contend that these requirements were not a pre-condition to enable the appellants to avail the benefits of the notification. The reference to another order of the Central Board of Excise Customs dated 24.7.1976 is not relevant to the facts of the case. 5. We also find that the Appellants have not paid the duty to the Government. The duty was paid by M/s. Kirlos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturer who had already collected the duty applied for refund and the Court observed that instead of directing the refund to the appellants, the amount could be retained by the State for payment of duty to the ultimate customers as and when the claims are made and established by them. The facts of the present case are totally different. The Appellants have not followed the procedure set ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
