TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l filed by the department against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi, allowing a claim for refund of Rs.l,573.34, being the advance deposit made under compounded levy scheme by the respondents which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the same was preferred after 6 months. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) had erred in holding that the general Law of Limitation applies in respect of such refund claim. In this connection, the department in their appeal, has cited the cases of M/s. Afro Asian Association, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1983 E.L.T. 372), and Incheck-Tyre v. Assistant Collector of Customs Others (1979 Cencus 360-D). 3. Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Consultant, fairl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, Rule 11 cannot come in as a bar against claims for such adjustment or refund. Shri Gopal Prasad refers to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Niranjan Battery (1984 ECR 455) in which it was held that such deposits are in the nature of only provisional payment, and therefore. Rule 11 would not apply. 4. The facts of the case and the submission made have been carefully considered. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicability of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, it is observed that Rule 92B of Central Excise provides for a scheme for discharge of duty liability under which a sum has to be deposited in advance of the date on which the unit commences manufacturing operation, and it has to be adjusted at the end of such operations. Thus, the provision for such adjustment and refund is made under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
