TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 15AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The duty payable under Tariff Item No. 15-AA is 20% ad valorem. 2. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 published notification dated April 24,1979 and exempted payment of duty of excise leviable on Organic Surface Active Agents as is in excess of 15% ad valorem. In other words, the Excise Duty on manufacture of Organic Surface Active Agents was reduced to 15% ad valorem from 20% ad valorem prescribed under Tariff Item No. 15-AA. The petitioners filed application for refund of duty in excess of 15% ad valorem between the period commencing from Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944. The order of the Assistant Collector is under challenge. 4. Shri Rajadhyaksha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that even though the limitation prescribed under Rule 11 is binding on the authorities created under the Statute, the said rule of limitation is not applicable when the petitioners file petitions in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. By catena of decisions of this Court, it has been pointed out that the provision of limitation under Rule 11 has no application when the assessee files proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The assessee is entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of according to the provisions of the Act. Shri Rajadhyaksha submits that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case. We declined to examine the applicability of the enactment of the Act in the present proceedings. In the present petition, we restrict the relief only to the declaration that the petitioners are entitled to the refund of Rs. 39,922.66 as per the refund application filed on September 9, 1980. We leave the parties to ascertain as to what are the consequences of the enactment of Act No. 40 of 1991 and the applicability of the same to the facts of the case. The petitioners are at liberty to adopt proper proceedings for enforcement of the order. 6. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
